- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork1k
chore: reduceignore_changes suggestion scope#17947
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 ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Danny Kopping <dannykopping@gmail.com>
Thanks for doing this! It was on my to-do list but appreciate you beating me to it. |
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.
Oops, before we merge lets also call this out in this place too:https://coder.com/docs/admin/templates/extending-templates/resource-persistence#-bulletproofing
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Co-authored-by: Edward Angert <EdwardAngert@users.noreply.github.com>
We currently don't show which fields caused drift for non-prebuild builds.#17571 introduced the drift output, but restricts it to only show when prebuild claims are taking place. We discussed holding off on showing that all the time because some customers may not want this information displayed. Sensitive values are stripped out, however. In any case, without this info of which attributes caused drift we can't advise operators/admins to be more specific with |
d2d2189 intomainUh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
We probably shouldn't be suggesting
ignore_changes = all. Only the attributes which cause drift in prebuilds should be ignored; everything else can behave as normal.