You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Direct module recipes: add cloud E2E functional tests for limitations not coverable in noncloud CI #12202
Tracking issue for E2E tests requested in review of #12109 ("Implement direct module support for Recipes", design #11876). These paths cannot run in noncloud CI because they require a live Terraform registry and/or real cloud credentials, so they are currently validated at unit boundaries only. They should be added to a cloud functional run.
The existing noncloud functional test (Test_DirectModule_Terraform) covers a direct Terraform module served from a local HTTP archive with outputs mapping and {{context.*}} resolution. The items below are what it does not cover.
Gaps to cover with cloud E2E
Terraform registry module + <source>:<version> pinning — e.g. terraform-aws-modules/rds/aws:6.1.0. The <source>:<version> parsing in parseTerraformModuleSource is unit-tested, but real module download + version resolution from registry.terraform.io needs a live registry. Manually verified once via a demo repo (terraform-iaac/deployment/kubernetes:1.4.6, kind/k3d), never in CI.
Bicep direct module — no functional test exists at all. The entire Bicep direct-module path is unit-only: direct-module detection, wrapARMParameters (incl. nil-skip), and the ARM output → Values/Secrets split. Add a cloud (Azure) functional test, ideally against an Azure Verified Module (AVM).
Cloud-backed direct modules — AWS RDS (Terraform) and Azure AVM (Bicep) require real cloud credentials to deploy.
Auth-gated module sources — private Terraform registry, Git, and OCI module sources (credential handling on download).
Secret/sensitive output routing end-to-end — secureString/secureObject (Bicep) and sensitive (Terraform) outputs must land in Secrets (not Values), including x-radius-sensitive encryption-at-rest. Currently unit-only.
Notes
Out of scope: link-time source-reachability validation (proposed as a separate follow-up feature, not a test gap).
Companion issue tracks noncloud test-hardening gaps that do not need cloud.
A project maintainer will review this issue and get back to you soon.
We also welcome community contributions! If you would like to pick this item up sooner and submit a pull request, please visit our contribution guidelines and assign this to yourself by commenting "/assign" on this issue.
For more information on our triage process please visit our triage overview
👍 We've reviewed this issue and have agreed to add it to our backlog. Please subscribe to this issue for notifications, we'll provide updates when we pick it up.
We also welcome community contributions! If you would like to pick this item up sooner and submit a pull request, please visit our contribution guidelines and assign this to yourself by commenting "/assign" on this issue.
For more information on our triage process please visit our triage overview
The requested cloud lane still needs live registry/version resolution, AWS/Azure modules, and authenticated private-source coverage.
The ordinary-output fixtures do not establish end-to-end sensitive-output routing/encryption. Noncloud happy-path coverage and separate secret-output implementation are not proof of the cloud acceptance matrix.
Activity
radius-triage commentedon Jun 22, 2026
👋 @willdavsmith Thanks for filing this issue.
A project maintainer will review this issue and get back to you soon.
We also welcome community contributions! If you would like to pick this item up sooner and submit a pull request, please visit our contribution guidelines and assign this to yourself by commenting "/assign" on this issue.
For more information on our triage process please visit our triage overview
radius-triage commentedon Jun 22, 2026
👍 We've reviewed this issue and have agreed to add it to our backlog. Please subscribe to this issue for notifications, we'll provide updates when we pick it up.
We also welcome community contributions! If you would like to pick this item up sooner and submit a pull request, please visit our contribution guidelines and assign this to yourself by commenting "/assign" on this issue.
For more information on our triage process please visit our triage overview
nicolejms commentedon Sep 11, 2026
Status against main baseline
ec979015e67de6222b2b83c462de1ae70790c3e4:Implemented
Remaining gaps