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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Stronger validation around ConnInfo for provisioners #23

Closed
armon opened this issue Jul 17, 2014 · 3 comments
Closed

Stronger validation around ConnInfo for provisioners #23

armon opened this issue Jul 17, 2014 · 3 comments
Labels
core enhancement

Comments

@armon
Copy link
Member

armon commented Jul 17, 2014

Currently most issues are caught at Apply() time. It would be nice to have stronger validation around this.
@mitchellh mitchellh mentioned this issue Jul 28, 2014
Closed
@armon armon mentioned this issue Jul 29, 2014
Closed
@mitchellh mitchellh added bug core and removed bug labels Oct 11, 2014
@mitchellh
Copy link
Contributor

Notes on this: we should be able to extend helper/schema to support provisioners as well. We still need to take a look at how connection information is passed around to create the best scenario for validation, but this helps.

pmoust added a commit to pmoust/terraform that referenced this issue Apr 20, 2015
@pmoust
Merge pull request hashicorp#23 from hashicorp/master
a0e3d33 
sync upstream
@josephholsten
Copy link
Contributor

@armon any particular validations you've got in mind? This probably needs more details for anyone to resolve this issue.

@phinze
Copy link
Contributor

phinze commented Nov 30, 2015

Closing this in favor of more specific issues on a per-provisioner basis.

@phinze phinze closed this as completed Nov 30, 2015
josephholsten added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 7, 2016
@josephholsten
Merge pull request #23 from Ensighten/udns-doc-fixup
d0181a3 
doc: cleanup typos in ultradns
@bentterp bentterp mentioned this issue Feb 23, 2018
Closed
@hashicorp hashicorp locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Nov 7, 2019
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
core enhancement
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@mitchellh @josephholsten @phinze @armon