GoogleCloudPlatform
Bigtable: Mark GC policy legacy fields as deprecated
Mark legacy GC policy fields deprecated: 'mode', 'max_age' and 'max_version'. They will be eventually removed. Instruct users to use 'gc_rules' instead.
Update examples to use 'gc_rules' instead of the legacy fields.
If this PR is for Terraform, I acknowledge that I have:
- [x] Searched through the issue tracker for an open issue that this either resolves or contributes to, commented on it to claim it, and written "fixes {url}" or "part of {url}" in this PR description. If there were no relevant open issues, I opened one and commented that I would like to work on it (not necessary for very small changes).
- [x] Generated Terraform, and ran
make testandmake lintto ensure it passes unit and linter tests. - [x] Ensured that all new fields I added that can be set by a user appear in at least one example (for generated resources) or third_party test (for handwritten resources or update tests).
- [x] Ran relevant acceptance tests (If the acceptance tests do not yet pass or you are unable to run them, please let your reviewer know).
- [x] Read the Release Notes Guide before writing my release note below.
Release Note Template for Downstream PRs (will be copied)
bigtable: deprecated GC policy legacy fields: 'mode', 'max_age' and 'max_version'
Hello! I am a robot who works on Magic Modules PRs.
I've detected that you're a community contributor. @rileykarson, a repository maintainer, has been assigned to assist you and help review your changes.
:question: First time contributing? Click here for more details
Your assigned reviewer will help review your code by:
- Ensuring it's backwards compatible, covers common error cases, etc.
- Summarizing the change into a user-facing changelog note.
- Passes tests, either our "VCR" suite, a set of presubmit tests, or with manual test runs.
You can help make sure that review is quick by running local tests and ensuring they're passing in between each push you make to your PR's branch. Also, try to leave a comment with each push you make, as pushes generally don't generate emails.
If your reviewer doesn't get back to you within a week after your most recent change, please feel free to leave a comment on the issue asking them to take a look! In the absence of a dedicated review dashboard most maintainers manage their pending reviews through email, and those will sometimes get lost in their inbox.
Hi! I'm the modular magician. Your PR generated some diffs in downstreams - here they are.
Diff report:
Terraform GA: Diff ( 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)) Terraform Beta: Diff ( 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)) TF Validator: Diff ( 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-))
Tests analytics
Total tests: 2176
Passed tests 1936
Skipped tests: 238
Failed tests: 2
Action taken
Triggering VCR tests in RECORDING mode for the tests that failed during VCR. Click here to see the failed tests
TestAccComputeInstance_soleTenantNodeAffinities|TestAccCGCSnippet_eventarcWorkflowsExample
Tests failed during RECORDING mode:
TestAccComputeInstance_soleTenantNodeAffinities[Error message] [Debug log]
TestAccCGCSnippet_eventarcWorkflowsExample[Error message] [Debug log]
Please fix these to complete your PR View the build log or the debug log for each test
I don't have a plan for removing these fields yet. What I want is making it very obvious that users shouldn't be using these deprecated field. Using them will have unexpected behavior. Do you think marking them as deprecated is too disruptive compare to documenting them as deprecated?
Rather than documenting them as deprecated I'd lean towards documenting the newer field as recommended instead. IMO if we're going to mark a deprecation, we need to be able to support seamless transitions between them.
Rather than documenting them as deprecated I'd lean towards documenting the newer field as recommended instead. IMO if we're going to mark a deprecation, we need to be able to support seamless transitions between them.
I don't think there is a seamless transition support between gc_rules and those 3 legacy fields. If this is preventing marking them as deprecated, so be it, I will go with the documentation route. Personally, I don't believe this is obvious enough to encourage our users to switch to using gc_rules.
Hi! I'm the modular magician. Your PR generated some diffs in downstreams - here they are.
Diff report:
Terraform GA: Diff ( 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)) Terraform Beta: Diff ( 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)) TF Validator: Diff ( 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-))
Tests analytics
Total tests: 2176
Passed tests 1936
Skipped tests: 238
Failed tests: 2
Action taken
Triggering VCR tests in RECORDING mode for the tests that failed during VCR. Click here to see the failed tests
TestAccComputeInstance_soleTenantNodeAffinities|TestAccCGCSnippet_eventarcWorkflowsExample
Tests failed during RECORDING mode:
TestAccComputeInstance_soleTenantNodeAffinities[Error message] [Debug log]
TestAccCGCSnippet_eventarcWorkflowsExample[Error message] [Debug log]
Please fix these to complete your PR View the build log or the debug log for each test
@rileykarson , after some consideration. I believe the better option for us is marking these fields as deprecated. We do support in-place transitions between the new and old fields. I don't see anything that can block marking these fields deprecated.
I will update the PR in a bit. Thanks!
Hi there, I'm the Modular magician. I've detected the following information about your changes:
Diff report
Your PR generated some diffs in downstreams - here they are.
Terraform GA: Diff ( 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)) Terraform Beta: Diff ( 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)) TF Validator: Diff ( 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-))
Tests analytics
Total tests: 2268
Passed tests 2025
Skipped tests: 243
Failed tests: 0
All tests passed in REPLAYING mode View the build log
Hey! Sorry, I haven't had the cycles to dig in to this and that doesn't look like it'll change in the immediate future. I'm assigning @slevenick as a replacement reviewer. @kevinsi4508: Sorry this took so long to hand off, given that's where I ended up! I'll try to do so earlier when necessary in the future.
Hi there, I'm the Modular magician. I've detected the following information about your changes:
Diff report
Your PR generated some diffs in downstreams - here they are.
Terraform GA: Diff ( 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)) Terraform Beta: Diff ( 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)) TF Validator: Diff ( 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-))
We've had some conversation offline, I'll summarize here:
To support removal of a working field in favor for another field we need to have a version of the provider where both fields work and a user can convert from the old -> new field without disruption (recreation of the resource in this case). This isn't possible due to how the field works currently, so we should hold off on deprecating the field until a path for removal is feasible
Tests analytics
Total tests: 2278
Passed tests 2032
Skipped tests: 244
Failed tests: 2
Action taken
Triggering VCR tests in RECORDING mode for the tests that failed during VCR. Click here to see the failed tests
TestAccComputeForwardingRule_update|TestAccLoggingBucketConfigProject_cmekSettings
Tests passed during RECORDING mode:
TestAccComputeForwardingRule_update[Debug log]
TestAccLoggingBucketConfigProject_cmekSettings[Debug log]
All tests passed View the build log or the debug log for each test
We've had some conversation offline, I'll summarize here:
To support removal of a working field in favor for another field we need to have a version of the provider where both fields work and a user can convert from the old -> new field without disruption (recreation of the resource in this case). This isn't possible due to how the field works currently, so we should hold off on deprecating the field until a path for removal is feasible
Thanks sam! Updated PR to reflex what we talked offline.
Hi there, I'm the Modular magician. I've detected the following information about your changes:
Diff report
Your PR generated some diffs in downstreams - here they are.
Terraform GA: Diff ( 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)) Terraform Beta: Diff ( 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)) TF Validator: Diff ( 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-))
Tests analytics
Total tests: 2278
Passed tests 2032
Skipped tests: 244
Failed tests: 2
Action taken
Triggering VCR tests in RECORDING mode for the tests that failed during VCR. Click here to see the failed tests
TestAccLoggingBucketConfigProject_cmekSettings|TestAccFirebaserulesRelease_BasicRelease