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鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Reconsider TF plugin SDK fork #1956

Open
VenelinMartinov opened this issue May 10, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Reconsider TF plugin SDK fork #1956

VenelinMartinov opened this issue May 10, 2024 · 2 comments
Labels
kind/enhancement Improvements or new features

Comments

@VenelinMartinov
Copy link
Contributor

VenelinMartinov commented May 10, 2024

Hello!

  • Vote on this issue by adding a 馃憤 reaction
  • If you want to implement this feature, comment to let us know (we'll work with you on design, scheduling, etc.)

Issue details

After discussing with @t0yv0, he suggested we might no longer need the plugin sdk fork. Looking at the diff the following changes look eventful:

pulumi/terraform-plugin-sdk@53f910a -> this one is the most interesting, related to 64 bit int support and timeouts. Perhaps no longer needed? We should carefully test ths.

pulumi/terraform-plugin-sdk@e2a20ae -> this is an optional optimisation, perhaps we can work that into the providers which need it/ into the bridge with some golink magic?

pulumi/terraform-plugin-sdk@74776a5

The rest of the changes are mostly related to exposing internal functions, which we could put into a separate library.

Affected area/feature

@t0yv0
Copy link
Member

t0yv0 commented May 10, 2024

In my latest understanding 74776a5 exposing provider internals is actually a little unfortunate, primary motivation was to integrate with as-is detailedDiff computation but with #1895 we should be able to write that correctly now and remove the need for 74776a5.

@iwahbe
Copy link
Member

iwahbe commented May 22, 2024

pulumi/terraform-plugin-sdk@53f910a has been removed, since it was causing bugs in the bridge.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind/enhancement Improvements or new features
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants