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

chore: upgrade tfe_organization_default_settings to provider framework #1633

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ctrombley
Copy link
Contributor

@ctrombley ctrombley commented Mar 4, 2025

Description

This PR upgrades the tfe_organization_default_settings resource to the provider framework.

Testing plan

  1. Acc tests
  2. Use the resource in config and verify that it works as expected.

@ctrombley ctrombley self-assigned this Mar 4, 2025
@ctrombley ctrombley requested a review from a team as a code owner March 4, 2025 20:07
@ctrombley ctrombley force-pushed the TF-24337-port-tfe-organization-default-settings-to-the-newer-provider-framework branch from 8154fae to 8569acf Compare March 5, 2025 23:48
},

"default_execution_mode": {
Type: schema.TypeString,
"default_execution_mode": schema.StringAttribute{
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If you use default_execution_mode = "local" alongside default_agent_pool_id attribute, it causes the error Provider produced inconsistent result after apply. The documentation for default_agent_pool_id attribute is clear that it Requires default_execution_mode to be set to agent.
But I'm curious if there is a validator like conflictsWith or something else that we could use here to avoid that confusing error. If not, no big deal!

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Added in 4ed3a67.

@ctrombley ctrombley requested a review from uturunku1 March 7, 2025 02:18
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.

2 participants