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

Populate inputs from live state for imports #1846

Merged
merged 6 commits into from Jan 7, 2022
Merged

Conversation

viveklak
Copy link
Contributor

Proposed changes

This change proposes an approach where we do a best-effort attempt at populating inputs from the live state for imports. Even though we tag input properties in the schema, we often have nested input fields mixed-in with dynamically populated fields so I am not entirely convinced this is the right approach. Curious to hear thoughts here.

Related issues (optional)

Fixes #1410.

@viveklak viveklak marked this pull request as draft December 23, 2021 20:32
@github-actions
Copy link

Does the PR have any schema changes?

Looking good! No breaking changes found.
No new resources/functions.

Copy link
Member

@lblackstone lblackstone left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this looks reasonable. To confirm my understanding, this would only apply to the import case because of the noOldInputs check, right?

provider/pkg/provider/provider.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@viveklak
Copy link
Contributor Author

viveklak commented Jan 4, 2022

To confirm my understanding, this would only apply to the import case because of the noOldInputs check, right?

Yes - correct.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jan 4, 2022

Does the PR have any schema changes?

Looking good! No breaking changes found.
No new resources/functions.

1 similar comment
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jan 4, 2022

Does the PR have any schema changes?

Looking good! No breaking changes found.
No new resources/functions.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jan 6, 2022

Does the PR have any schema changes?

Looking good! No breaking changes found.
No new resources/functions.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jan 7, 2022

Does the PR have any schema changes?

Looking good! No breaking changes found.
No new resources/functions.

1 similar comment
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jan 7, 2022

Does the PR have any schema changes?

Looking good! No breaking changes found.
No new resources/functions.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jan 7, 2022

Does the PR have any schema changes?

Looking good! No breaking changes found.
No new resources/functions.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jan 7, 2022

Does the PR have any schema changes?

Looking good! No breaking changes found.
No new resources/functions.

@viveklak viveklak marked this pull request as ready for review January 7, 2022 17:08
@viveklak viveklak merged commit feebd29 into master Jan 7, 2022
@pulumi-bot pulumi-bot deleted the vl/ImportWithInputs branch January 7, 2022 17:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

pulumi import lose the spec of CustomResourceDefinition
2 participants