Fix provider name/alias mixup #312
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
aeschright
approved these changes
Nov 20, 2020
|
Am I right that this doesn't affect the UX, as it doesn't affect the exported JSON? In other words, does it need mentioning in the Changelog? |
|
@radeksimko correct it's not worth calling out |
|
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. |
ghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Very minor mixup of the registry API response, should have used the name field. I believe all alias' on the registry is the same as the name for the official providers, however I discovered playing around, that partner (verified) providers don't have an alias, which led to a config error.
This PR still only packages official providers, but corrects the mistake. I did regenerate the provider schemas and I guess there are some recent releases that created a diff.