refactor: using New{Resource}ID rather than instantiating the Resource ID types
#25354
Conversation
This file contains 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
catriona-m
approved these changes
Mar 21, 2024
| @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ | |||
| package parse | |||
|
|
|||
| import ( | |||
| "github.com/hashicorp/go-azure-helpers/lang/pointer" | |||
| @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ | |||
| package parse | |||
|
|
|||
| import ( | |||
| "github.com/hashicorp/go-azure-helpers/lang/pointer" | |||
| } | ||
| storageCfg, err := storageCfgsClient.Get(ctx, storageId) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("reading Recovery Service storage Cfg %s: %+v", id.String(), err) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| return fmt.Errorf("reading Recovery Service storage Cfg %s: %+v", id.String(), err) | |
| return fmt.Errorf("reading Recovery Service storage Cfg %s: %+v", id, err) |
|
This PR is being labeled as "stale" because it has not been updated for 30 or more days. If this PR is still valid, please remove the "stale" label. If this PR is blocked, please add it to the "Blocked" milestone. If you need some help completing this PR, please leave a comment letting us know. Thank you! |
We should be using `example.NewExampleID(` rather than `example.ExampleId{` to instantiate Resource IDs
Whilst that might seem pedantic, it means that should a new field be added to `ExampleId` we'd get a compile-time failure
when using the `New` function which would mean we'd identify the missing field, whereas instantiating the struct would mean
these would get the default (empty) value - leading to incorrect details.
It's minor, but worthwhile from a consistency perspective
stephybun
force-pushed
the
b/resource-id-creation
branch
from
ebea7e4 to
6528910
Compare
|
I'm going to lock this pull request because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active contributions. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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.
Community Note
Description
We should be using
example.NewExampleID(rather thanexample.ExampleId{to instantiate Resource IDsWhilst that might seem pedantic, it means that should a new field be added to
ExampleIdwe'd get a compile-time failure when using theNewfunction which would mean we'd identify the missing field, whereas instantiating the struct would mean these would get the default (empty) value - leading to incorrect details.It's minor, but worthwhile from a consistency perspective