Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Sort ResourceID.Path keys for consistent output #116

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jun 21, 2017

Conversation

jbardin
Copy link
Member

@jbardin jbardin commented Jun 21, 2017

While the API may not care what order the key-value path parts are in,
sort the keys so that we can maintain a consistent order for tests and
debugging.

Add more key-values to the test so that it fails more frequently than
not.

While the API may not care what order the key-value path parts are in,
sort the keys so that we can maintain a consistent order for tests and
debugging.

Add more key-values to the test so that it fails more frequently than
not.
Copy link
Contributor

@stack72 stack72 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM :)

@stack72 stack72 merged commit 5abb9e4 into master Jun 21, 2017
@stack72 stack72 deleted the jbardin/compose-resource-id-order branch June 21, 2017 16:09
tombuildsstuff pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 4, 2017
…urce-id-order

Sort ResourceID.Path keys for consistent output
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 1, 2020

I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues.

If you feel this issue should be reopened, we encourage creating a new issue linking back to this one for added context. If you feel I made an error 🤖 🙉 , please reach out to my human friends 👉 hashibot-feedback@hashicorp.com. Thanks!

@hashicorp hashicorp locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 1, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants