Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Add sensitive_fields to resources.yml - #6192
Conversation
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Integration test reportCommit: c0794e6
8 interesting tests: 4 RECOVERED, 3 SKIP, 1 flaky
Top 11 slowest tests (at least 2 minutes):
|
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
sensitive_fields to resources.ymlUh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
| return v, nil | ||
| } | ||
| const sensitiveRedactedMarker = "[redacted]" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One possible idea: instead of using "[redacted]", use "[redacted_uniquekey]" and keep map of unique key to secret. Then this uniquekey propagates all the way to resource where we can do search and replace post serialization.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
denik
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do any tests record bits of resources.json that show that redaction happened here?
Changes
Add sensitive_fields to resources.yml
As a result it allows us to use Value field from SDK struct as is and do a proper drift detected
Why
The effective_value returned from the API after DoRead (with include_value=true) was not being used in the drift comparison, causing a false "update" action on every second plan.
Now we do not unset the fields and redact them instead which makes drift detection reliable.
Tests
Drift test pass