Skip to content

Fix gcs_source to uris transform #309

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
+1 −1
Open

Fix gcs_source to uris transform #309

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion modules/valkey/main.tf
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ resource "google_memorystore_instance" "valkey_cluster" {
dynamic "gcs_source" {
for_each = var.gcs_source != null ? ["gcs_source"] : []
content {
uris = var.gcs_source
uris = split(",", var.gcs_source)
Copy link
Member

@bharathkkb bharathkkb Jul 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If a list is expected as input, it would be better to change gcs_source to a list type.

Copy link
Author

@bai bai Jul 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can do, but as a note - that goes kinda against the way lists are handled elsewhere in google terraform modules, for example node_locations comma separated list in https://github.com/terraform-google-modules/terraform-google-kubernetes-engine (right in the root readme).

I actually do prefer using a proper list by the way, just wanted to double check with you.

Copy link
Member

@bharathkkb bharathkkb Jul 23, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It escapes me why we did it that way for node_locations (maybe because node_pools were untyped) but I am leaning towards list for this case. @imrannayer @q2w any thoughts?

}
}

Expand Down