Update action proto v5/v6 definitions to match TF core #554
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
1 task
austinvalle
commented
Sep 3, 2025
| module github.com/hashicorp/terraform-plugin-go | ||
|
|
||
| go 1.24 | ||
| go 1.23.0 |
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like the Go module was inadvertently bumped by [email protected], I'm reverting that change for the moment, so we can come back and bump the version along with the CI -> https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-providers-devex-internal/issues/189
SBGoods
approved these changes
Sep 4, 2025
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Related Issue
N/A
Description
This PR brings our proto file up-to-date with TF core, notably just removing unused action schema types and adding linked resource config data to the validate RPC (currently unreachable with unlinked schema types).
There are also some formal reservation of field numbers that will be used by future features, as I didn't know
reservedwas an actual keyword when I wrote the original comment 😆Rollback Plan
Changes to Security Controls
No