-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 543
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.
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
Resolve DistributedApplicationResourceBuilder<ResourceWithConnectionStringSurrogate> correctly in args evaluation #7716
Resolve DistributedApplicationResourceBuilder<ResourceWithConnectionStringSurrogate> correctly in args evaluation #7716
Conversation
…tringSurrogate> correctly in args evaluation
So I had a look at .NET Aspire 9.0 and this problem still existed there so this isn't a regression. But it is a gap that we need to fill. I think your solution is fine, but it needs some test cases to make sure that we don't accidentally regress this behavior. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM. Thanks for jumping on this @adamint
/backport to release/9.1 |
Started backporting to release/9.1: https://github.com/dotnet/aspire/actions/runs/13447964177 |
Description
ResourceWithConnectionStringSurrogate is wrapped in its builder when we are processing args, and so we should evaluate the underlying resource.
The right fix might be to do that for all DistributedApplicationResourceBuilder, but I'm not confident that would be correct. I can't find other cases where a builder is passed instead of the resource, does anyone else know? @mitchdenny for thoughts? keeping this as a draft during discussion
Fixes #7662 (comment)
Checklist
<remarks />
and<code />
elements on your triple slash comments?breaking-change
template):doc-idea
template):