rambleraptor commented on code in PR #23:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg-terraform/pull/23#discussion_r2962839838
##########
internal/provider/resource_table.go:
##########
@@ -96,6 +98,64 @@ func (r *icebergTableResource) Schema(_ context.Context, _
resource.SchemaReques
},
},
},
+ "partition_spec": rscschema.SingleNestedAttribute{
+ Description: "The partition spec of the table.",
+ Optional: true,
+ Computed: true,
+ Attributes: map[string]rscschema.Attribute{
+ "fields": rscschema.ListNestedAttribute{
+ Description: "The fields of the
partition spec.",
+ Required: true,
+ NestedObject:
rscschema.NestedAttributeObject{
+ Attributes:
map[string]rscschema.Attribute{
+ "source_id":
rscschema.Int64Attribute{
+
Description: "The source field ID.",
+
Required: true,
+ },
+ "name":
rscschema.StringAttribute{
+
Description: "The partition field name.",
+
Required: true,
+ },
+ "transform":
rscschema.StringAttribute{
+
Description: "The partition transform.",
+
Required: true,
+ },
Review Comment:
In general, we should be really careful about doing client-side validation
when server-side validation also occurs.
I've seen past situations where users need to update TF providers to change
a client-side valiation, but they're so far behind in TF versions that the
upgrade is too painful. Not saying that this will happen to us (smaller surface
area!), but it's worth keeping in mind.
With that in mind, maybe let's avoid a validation on transform, but validate
the others?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
