Skip to content

fix: provide default for var.location to improve backwards compatibility of ADC change. - #213

Closed
kevcube wants to merge 1 commit into
GoogleCloudPlatform:mainfrom
kevcube:patch-1
Closed

fix: provide default for var.location to improve backwards compatibility of ADC change.#213
kevcube wants to merge 1 commit into
GoogleCloudPlatform:mainfrom
kevcube:patch-1

Conversation

@kevcube

@kevcube kevcube commented Feb 12, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Currently, the logic was to use var.function_location if var.location was unset. But because var.location has no default, the var.location is unset scenario is impossible; terraform will ask for it to be set if this is the root module, and will error if this is a child module of the active configuration.

ref: terraform-google-modules/terraform-example-foundation#1458

…ility of ADC change.

Currently, the logic was to use `var.function_location` if `var.location` was unset. But because `var.location` has no default, this module cannot be used without setting it.
@kevcube

kevcube commented Feb 12, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@anshukaira this is related to #194

@krprabhat-eng

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Can we somehow mark function_location as deprecated & promote the use of location. If we make location as optional variable, it will show under advanced fields in ADC. As we created a new major version for this breaking change, it should not impact modules consuming the old version.

@anshukaira

anshukaira commented Feb 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Can we somehow mark function_location as deprecated & promote the use of location. If we make location as optional variable, it will show under advanced fields in ADC. As we created a new major version for this breaking change, it should not impact modules consuming the old version.

For now, i think it should be fine to add this, as this will be release as 0.8.1 i think.
ADC has a version fro 0.8.0 so i dont think this should have any impact.
I will discuss this once internally, what should we do in this case and get back here. For now, PR is LGTMed from my end

@krprabhat-eng
krprabhat-eng enabled auto-merge (squash) February 13, 2026 05:54
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

This PR is stale because it has been open 60 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 7 days

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the Stale label Apr 14, 2026
@kevcube

kevcube commented Apr 15, 2026 via email

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@kevcube

kevcube commented Apr 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@krprabhat-eng @anshukaira can this merge?

@github-actions github-actions Bot removed the Stale label Apr 15, 2026
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

This PR is stale because it has been open 60 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 7 days

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the Stale label Jun 14, 2026
@github-actions github-actions Bot closed this Jun 21, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants