Extensions should be able to hook into `Register-SecretVault` about secretmanagement HOT 4 OPEN

@SydneyhSmith @PaulHigin FYI, as follow up on this issue, another evidence where the current behavior was confusing to a user because it didn't show any errors until they did something so they assumed it worked.
JustinGrote/SecretManagement.KeePass#32 (comment)

I still maintain that offline support should be done via vaultparameter rather than a mandated default.

from secretmanagement.

@SydneyhSmith after several vault implementations I'm just calling Test-SecretVault in every single command as the first line basically, it would be nice to be a little less ham-fisted with it.

Vault implementers can implement offline support, either by simply not implementing Register-SecretVault, or supporting offline creation via a vaultparameter, e.g. Register-SecretVault -Name myvault -Module myonlinemodule -VaultParameter @{DontValidate=$true}

from secretmanagement.

Thanks @itfranck we have tried to separate the registration of the vault from the loading of it for the best user experience...we believe Test-SecretVault helps to resolve this issue... we do not plan to implement this for the GA of the module but will also leave this open

from secretmanagement.

Usually I won't really use Test-SecretVault unless I am writing a script and / or encounter an issue.
I was thinking more in the lines of having the error (eg: missing parameter) disclosed at registration time (through my hook up) rather than waiting upon the next operation in line (eg: Get / Set secret) to throw the error at the user.

It is kind of the same (but opposite) as the Unregister-secret where you now can (through hookup) have the unloading associated with the unregister operation.

But I am all good with the rendered verdict.
Regards

from secretmanagement.