careful-family-1464403/02/2023, 5:23 PM
little-cartoon-1056903/02/2023, 8:02 PM
careful-family-1464403/03/2023, 2:46 PM
little-cartoon-1056903/04/2023, 1:44 AM
witty-candle-6600703/06/2023, 3:01 PM
careful-family-1464403/06/2023, 3:44 PM
witty-candle-6600703/06/2023, 7:12 PM
for this use-case since that’s the only way to have access to all the resources in the stack at a given time. Stack validation does run predeployment but you are limited to what properties you can see. And as you’ll see in example code, this leads to another policy being needed to ensure that works during predeployment.
careful-family-1464403/06/2023, 9:21 PM
it will still create the objects and then show the violations. That's somewhat what I'm worried about at this point.
witty-candle-6600703/06/2023, 9:35 PM
or the first part of a
and both types of policies will also run after the
completes. So your goal of checking before deployment will work here. In fact, if you test the provided code and change the
for the policies and do a
you’ll see that you won’t be allowed to do the actual deployment step if there’s a policy violation.
policy. Just need to test it a bit more.
careful-family-1464403/08/2023, 10:15 PM
witty-candle-6600703/09/2023, 9:20 PM
which won’t stop the update. But setting the policy to
would prevent the update from occurring.
careful-family-1464403/14/2023, 1:07 PM
I would receive errors as expected. But using
in order to automate the process, the warnings show up but only after the stack is created.
pulumi up --yes --skip-preview --policy-pacy ../policies
as it resides outside of the
resource itself unfortunately.
witty-candle-6600703/14/2023, 2:39 PM
throws a wrench into things.
careful-family-1464403/15/2023, 7:17 PM
witty-candle-6600703/15/2023, 7:27 PM
as a way of addressing this use-case? (I’m thinking of opening a github issue for this.)
careful-family-1464403/15/2023, 8:01 PM