Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Changed
Then it must contain
to properly drill down and split into multiple resources if need beExample stash:
If we run
Then it must contain bypass
the new stash should look likeTwo new resources were put into stash as there were two instances of
bypass
in the previous stash.This introduces some problems to previous issues such as #285, where the example stash is coming from and azurerm adds the second bypass to the plan. Drilling down to
bypass
will expose the secondbypass
instance to the following steps.I think issues like this should adjust their scenarios since the old behavior was practically faulty.
An alternative scenario for the issue could be:
In this scenario at least one bypass should contain AzureServices
or
where the scenario filters the unwanted
bypass
instances before moving to theTHEN
step. (A third alternative would be entirely removing line 15 and the@noskip
tag)(Tests of this issue was also modified to accommodate the changes)
Notes: Additional filtering needed, to achieve the desired state. (e.g. filter out the bypass with [False, False, False])
Changed When it contains to accomodate singular values within when
No comments here
Note: There were a bit more comments than usual, please let me know if they should be changed/removed
This issue partly addresses #307