Skip to content

Conversation

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

@github-actions github-actions bot commented Nov 4, 2025

Backport

This PR is auto-generated from #37854 to be assessed for backporting due to the inclusion of the label 1.13-backport.

The below text is copied from the body of the original PR.


Due to the inherently ephemeral nature of provider configuration, inconsistent function results were tolerated while evaluating provider config. This loophole was found to be used by a number of configurations, which took advantage of it to create the equivalent of ephemeral values before they formally existed in the language.

In order to work around this, we can create a special evaluation scope just for providers, allowing us to override the results check for filesystem functions. I've opted to not further clutter the EvalContext interface since this is intended to be a temporary workaround, and does not contribute to the testing of that interface (the interface is solely for internal unit tests anyway).

Fixes #37792


Overview of commits

@github-actions github-actions bot force-pushed the backport/jbardin/provider-eval-scope/unlikely-enough-newt branch from 5538bb0 to 41d7ba7 Compare November 4, 2025 18:31
@github-actions github-actions bot requested a review from jbardin November 4, 2025 18:31
@jbardin jbardin marked this pull request as ready for review November 4, 2025 18:32
@jbardin jbardin requested a review from a team as a code owner November 4, 2025 18:32
@jbardin jbardin force-pushed the backport/jbardin/provider-eval-scope/unlikely-enough-newt branch from c5e0001 to 7d47062 Compare November 4, 2025 18:38
@jbardin jbardin enabled auto-merge November 4, 2025 18:41
@jbardin jbardin merged commit 4930eaa into v1.13 Nov 4, 2025
7 checks passed
@jbardin jbardin deleted the backport/jbardin/provider-eval-scope/unlikely-enough-newt branch November 4, 2025 19:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants