ResiLien
/
terraform
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
terraform/internal/plans/objchange/objchange_test.go

1570 lines
43 KiB
Go
Raw Normal View History

plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
package objchange
import (
"testing"
"github.com/apparentlymart/go-dump/dump"
"github.com/zclconf/go-cty/cty"
Move configs/ to internal/configs/ This is part of a general effort to move all of Terraform's non-library package surface under internal in order to reinforce that these are for internal use within Terraform only. If you were previously importing packages under this prefix into an external codebase, you could pin to an earlier release tag as an interim solution until you've make a plan to achieve the same functionality some other way.
2021-05-17 21:17:09 +02:00
"github.com/hashicorp/terraform/internal/configs/configschema"
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
)
plans/objchange: extended ProposedNewObject to descend into attributes with NestedType objects. There are a handful of mostly cosmetic changes in this PR which likely make the diff awkward to read; I renamed several functions to (hopefully) clarifiy which funcs worked with Blocks vs other types. I also extracted some small code snippets into their own functions for reusability. The code that descends into attributes with NestedTypes is similar to the block-handling code, and differs in all the ways blocks and attributes differ: null is valid for attributes, unlike blocks which can only be present or empty.
2021-02-10 14:31:21 +01:00
func TestProposedNew(t *testing.T) {
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
tests := map[string]struct {
Schema *configschema.Block
Prior cty.Value
Config cty.Value
Want cty.Value
}{
"empty": {
&configschema.Block{},
cty.EmptyObjectVal,
cty.EmptyObjectVal,
cty.EmptyObjectVal,
},
"no prior": {
&configschema.Block{
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"foo": {
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
},
"bar": {
Type: cty.String,
Computed: true,
},
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingSingle,
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"blop": {
Type: cty.String,
Required: true,
},
},
},
Computed: true,
},
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
},
BlockTypes: map[string]*configschema.NestedBlock{
"baz": {
Nesting: configschema.NestingSingle,
Block: configschema.Block{
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"boz": {
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
Computed: true,
},
plans/objchange: Don't presume unknown for values unset in config Previously we would construct a proposed new state with unknown values in place of any not-set-in-config computed attributes, trying to save the provider a little work in specifying that itself. Unfortunately that turns out to be problematic because it conflates two concerns: attributes can be explicitly set in configuration to an unknown value, in which case the final result of that unknown overrides any default value the provider might normally populate. In other words, this allows the provider to recognize in the proposed new state the difference between an Optional+Computed attribute being set to unknown in the config vs not being set in the config at all. The provider now has the responsibility to replace these proposed null values with unknown values during PlanResourceChange if it expects to select a value during the apply step. It may also populate a known value if the final result can be predicted at plan time, as is the case for constant defaults specified in the provider code. This change comes from a realization that from core's perspective the helper/schema ideas of zero values, explicit default values, and customizediff tweaks are all just examples of "defaults", and by allowing the provider to see during plan whether these attributes are being explicitly set in configuration and thus decide whether the default will be provided immediately during plan or deferred until apply.
2019-02-07 23:01:39 +01:00
"biz": {
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
Computed: true,
},
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
},
},
},
},
},
cty.NullVal(cty.DynamicPseudoType),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.StringVal("hello"),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.NullVal(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{
"blop": cty.String,
})),
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
"bar": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
"baz": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"boz": cty.StringVal("world"),
plans/objchange: Don't presume unknown for values unset in config Previously we would construct a proposed new state with unknown values in place of any not-set-in-config computed attributes, trying to save the provider a little work in specifying that itself. Unfortunately that turns out to be problematic because it conflates two concerns: attributes can be explicitly set in configuration to an unknown value, in which case the final result of that unknown overrides any default value the provider might normally populate. In other words, this allows the provider to recognize in the proposed new state the difference between an Optional+Computed attribute being set to unknown in the config vs not being set in the config at all. The provider now has the responsibility to replace these proposed null values with unknown values during PlanResourceChange if it expects to select a value during the apply step. It may also populate a known value if the final result can be predicted at plan time, as is the case for constant defaults specified in the provider code. This change comes from a realization that from core's perspective the helper/schema ideas of zero values, explicit default values, and customizediff tweaks are all just examples of "defaults", and by allowing the provider to see during plan whether these attributes are being explicitly set in configuration and thus decide whether the default will be provided immediately during plan or deferred until apply.
2019-02-07 23:01:39 +01:00
// An unknown in the config represents a situation where
// an argument is explicitly set to an expression result
// that is derived from an unknown value. This is distinct
// from leaving it null, which allows the provider itself
// to decide the value during PlanResourceChange.
"biz": cty.UnknownVal(cty.String),
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
}),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.StringVal("hello"),
plans/objchange: Don't presume unknown for values unset in config Previously we would construct a proposed new state with unknown values in place of any not-set-in-config computed attributes, trying to save the provider a little work in specifying that itself. Unfortunately that turns out to be problematic because it conflates two concerns: attributes can be explicitly set in configuration to an unknown value, in which case the final result of that unknown overrides any default value the provider might normally populate. In other words, this allows the provider to recognize in the proposed new state the difference between an Optional+Computed attribute being set to unknown in the config vs not being set in the config at all. The provider now has the responsibility to replace these proposed null values with unknown values during PlanResourceChange if it expects to select a value during the apply step. It may also populate a known value if the final result can be predicted at plan time, as is the case for constant defaults specified in the provider code. This change comes from a realization that from core's perspective the helper/schema ideas of zero values, explicit default values, and customizediff tweaks are all just examples of "defaults", and by allowing the provider to see during plan whether these attributes are being explicitly set in configuration and thus decide whether the default will be provided immediately during plan or deferred until apply.
2019-02-07 23:01:39 +01:00
// unset computed attributes are null in the proposal; provider
// usually changes them to "unknown" during PlanResourceChange,
// to indicate that the value will be decided during apply.
"bar": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.NullVal(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{
"blop": cty.String,
})),
plans/objchange: Don't presume unknown for values unset in config Previously we would construct a proposed new state with unknown values in place of any not-set-in-config computed attributes, trying to save the provider a little work in specifying that itself. Unfortunately that turns out to be problematic because it conflates two concerns: attributes can be explicitly set in configuration to an unknown value, in which case the final result of that unknown overrides any default value the provider might normally populate. In other words, this allows the provider to recognize in the proposed new state the difference between an Optional+Computed attribute being set to unknown in the config vs not being set in the config at all. The provider now has the responsibility to replace these proposed null values with unknown values during PlanResourceChange if it expects to select a value during the apply step. It may also populate a known value if the final result can be predicted at plan time, as is the case for constant defaults specified in the provider code. This change comes from a realization that from core's perspective the helper/schema ideas of zero values, explicit default values, and customizediff tweaks are all just examples of "defaults", and by allowing the provider to see during plan whether these attributes are being explicitly set in configuration and thus decide whether the default will be provided immediately during plan or deferred until apply.
2019-02-07 23:01:39 +01:00
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
"baz": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"boz": cty.StringVal("world"),
plans/objchange: Don't presume unknown for values unset in config Previously we would construct a proposed new state with unknown values in place of any not-set-in-config computed attributes, trying to save the provider a little work in specifying that itself. Unfortunately that turns out to be problematic because it conflates two concerns: attributes can be explicitly set in configuration to an unknown value, in which case the final result of that unknown overrides any default value the provider might normally populate. In other words, this allows the provider to recognize in the proposed new state the difference between an Optional+Computed attribute being set to unknown in the config vs not being set in the config at all. The provider now has the responsibility to replace these proposed null values with unknown values during PlanResourceChange if it expects to select a value during the apply step. It may also populate a known value if the final result can be predicted at plan time, as is the case for constant defaults specified in the provider code. This change comes from a realization that from core's perspective the helper/schema ideas of zero values, explicit default values, and customizediff tweaks are all just examples of "defaults", and by allowing the provider to see during plan whether these attributes are being explicitly set in configuration and thus decide whether the default will be provided immediately during plan or deferred until apply.
2019-02-07 23:01:39 +01:00
"biz": cty.UnknownVal(cty.String), // explicit unknown preserved from config
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
}),
}),
},
don't add empty blocks in ProposedNewObject If the config contained a null block, don't convert it to a block with empty values for the proposed new value.
2019-03-02 17:21:59 +01:00
"null block remains null": {
&configschema.Block{
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"foo": {
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
},
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingSingle,
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"blop": {
Type: cty.String,
Required: true,
},
},
},
Computed: true,
},
don't add empty blocks in ProposedNewObject If the config contained a null block, don't convert it to a block with empty values for the proposed new value.
2019-03-02 17:21:59 +01:00
},
BlockTypes: map[string]*configschema.NestedBlock{
"baz": {
Nesting: configschema.NestingSingle,
Block: configschema.Block{
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"boz": {
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
Computed: true,
},
},
},
},
},
},
cty.NullVal(cty.DynamicPseudoType),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.StringVal("bar"),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.NullVal(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{
"blop": cty.String,
})),
don't add empty blocks in ProposedNewObject If the config contained a null block, don't convert it to a block with empty values for the proposed new value.
2019-03-02 17:21:59 +01:00
"baz": cty.NullVal(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{
"boz": cty.String,
})),
}),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
// The bloop attribue and baz block does not exist in the config,
// and therefore shouldn't be planned.
don't add empty blocks in ProposedNewObject If the config contained a null block, don't convert it to a block with empty values for the proposed new value.
2019-03-02 17:21:59 +01:00
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.StringVal("bar"),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.NullVal(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{
"blop": cty.String,
})),
don't add empty blocks in ProposedNewObject If the config contained a null block, don't convert it to a block with empty values for the proposed new value.
2019-03-02 17:21:59 +01:00
"baz": cty.NullVal(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{
"boz": cty.String,
})),
}),
},
plans/objchange: Don't panic when a prior value with a set is null ProposedNewObject intentionally replaces a null prior with an unknown prior in order to easily fill in unknown values where they "show through" under values not set explicitly in config, but it was failing to handle that situation when dealing with nested blocks that are backed by sets.
2018-10-18 01:20:29 +02:00
"no prior with set": {
// This one is here because our handling of sets is more complex
// than others (due to the fuzzy correlation heuristic) and
// historically that caused us some panic-related grief.
&configschema.Block{
BlockTypes: map[string]*configschema.NestedBlock{
"baz": {
Nesting: configschema.NestingSet,
Block: configschema.Block{
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"boz": {
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
Computed: true,
},
},
},
},
},
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"bloop": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingSet,
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"blop": {
Type: cty.String,
Required: true,
},
},
},
Computed: true,
Optional: true,
},
},
plans/objchange: Don't panic when a prior value with a set is null ProposedNewObject intentionally replaces a null prior with an unknown prior in order to easily fill in unknown values where they "show through" under values not set explicitly in config, but it was failing to handle that situation when dealing with nested blocks that are backed by sets.
2018-10-18 01:20:29 +02:00
},
cty.NullVal(cty.DynamicPseudoType),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"baz": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"boz": cty.StringVal("world"),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("blub"),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: Don't panic when a prior value with a set is null ProposedNewObject intentionally replaces a null prior with an unknown prior in order to easily fill in unknown values where they "show through" under values not set explicitly in config, but it was failing to handle that situation when dealing with nested blocks that are backed by sets.
2018-10-18 01:20:29 +02:00
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"baz": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"boz": cty.StringVal("world"),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("blub"),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: Don't panic when a prior value with a set is null ProposedNewObject intentionally replaces a null prior with an unknown prior in order to easily fill in unknown values where they "show through" under values not set explicitly in config, but it was failing to handle that situation when dealing with nested blocks that are backed by sets.
2018-10-18 01:20:29 +02:00
}),
},
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
"prior attributes": {
&configschema.Block{
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"foo": {
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
},
"bar": {
Type: cty.String,
Computed: true,
},
"baz": {
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
Computed: true,
},
"boz": {
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
Computed: true,
},
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingSingle,
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"blop": {
Type: cty.String,
Required: true,
},
},
},
Optional: true,
},
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
},
},
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.StringVal("bonjour"),
"bar": cty.StringVal("petit dejeuner"),
"baz": cty.StringVal("grande dejeuner"),
"boz": cty.StringVal("a la monde"),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("glub"),
}),
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.StringVal("hello"),
"bar": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
"baz": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
"boz": cty.StringVal("world"),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("bleep"),
}),
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.StringVal("hello"),
"bar": cty.StringVal("petit dejeuner"),
"baz": cty.StringVal("grande dejeuner"),
"boz": cty.StringVal("world"),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("bleep"),
}),
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
}),
},
"prior nested single": {
&configschema.Block{
BlockTypes: map[string]*configschema.NestedBlock{
"foo": {
Nesting: configschema.NestingSingle,
Block: configschema.Block{
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"bar": {
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
Computed: true,
},
"baz": {
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
Computed: true,
},
},
},
},
},
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"bloop": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingSingle,
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"blop": {
Type: cty.String,
Required: true,
},
"bleep": {
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
},
},
},
Optional: true,
},
},
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
},
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("beep"),
"baz": cty.StringVal("boop"),
}),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("glub"),
"bleep": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("bap"),
"baz": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("glub"),
"bleep": cty.StringVal("beep"),
}),
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("bap"),
"baz": cty.StringVal("boop"),
}),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("glub"),
"bleep": cty.StringVal("beep"),
}),
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
}),
},
"prior nested list": {
&configschema.Block{
BlockTypes: map[string]*configschema.NestedBlock{
"foo": {
Nesting: configschema.NestingList,
Block: configschema.Block{
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"bar": {
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
Computed: true,
},
"baz": {
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
Computed: true,
},
},
},
},
},
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"bloop": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingList,
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"blop": {
Type: cty.String,
Required: true,
},
},
},
Optional: true,
},
},
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
},
configschema: Handle nested blocks containing dynamic-typed attributes We need to make the collection itself be a tuple or object rather than list or map in this case, since otherwise all of the elements of the collection are constrained to be of the same type and that isn't the intent of a provider indicating that it accepts any type.
2018-08-23 00:45:34 +02:00
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.ListVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("beep"),
"baz": cty.StringVal("boop"),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.ListVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("bar"),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("baz"),
}),
}),
configschema: Handle nested blocks containing dynamic-typed attributes We need to make the collection itself be a tuple or object rather than list or map in this case, since otherwise all of the elements of the collection are constrained to be of the same type and that isn't the intent of a provider indicating that it accepts any type.
2018-08-23 00:45:34 +02:00
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.ListVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("bap"),
"baz": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("blep"),
"baz": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.ListVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("bar"),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("baz"),
}),
}),
configschema: Handle nested blocks containing dynamic-typed attributes We need to make the collection itself be a tuple or object rather than list or map in this case, since otherwise all of the elements of the collection are constrained to be of the same type and that isn't the intent of a provider indicating that it accepts any type.
2018-08-23 00:45:34 +02:00
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.ListVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("bap"),
"baz": cty.StringVal("boop"),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("blep"),
"baz": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.ListVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("bar"),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("baz"),
}),
}),
configschema: Handle nested blocks containing dynamic-typed attributes We need to make the collection itself be a tuple or object rather than list or map in this case, since otherwise all of the elements of the collection are constrained to be of the same type and that isn't the intent of a provider indicating that it accepts any type.
2018-08-23 00:45:34 +02:00
}),
},
"prior nested list with dynamic": {
&configschema.Block{
BlockTypes: map[string]*configschema.NestedBlock{
"foo": {
Nesting: configschema.NestingList,
Block: configschema.Block{
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"bar": {
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
Computed: true,
},
"baz": {
Type: cty.DynamicPseudoType,
Optional: true,
Computed: true,
},
},
},
},
},
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"bloop": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingList,
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"blop": {
Type: cty.DynamicPseudoType,
Required: true,
},
"blub": {
Type: cty.DynamicPseudoType,
Optional: true,
},
},
},
Optional: true,
},
},
configschema: Handle nested blocks containing dynamic-typed attributes We need to make the collection itself be a tuple or object rather than list or map in this case, since otherwise all of the elements of the collection are constrained to be of the same type and that isn't the intent of a provider indicating that it accepts any type.
2018-08-23 00:45:34 +02:00
},
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.TupleVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("beep"),
"baz": cty.StringVal("boop"),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.ListVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("bar"),
"blub": cty.StringVal("glub"),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("baz"),
"blub": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.TupleVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("bap"),
"baz": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("blep"),
"baz": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.ListVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("bar"),
"blub": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.TupleVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("bap"),
"baz": cty.StringVal("boop"),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("blep"),
"baz": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.ListVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("bar"),
"blub": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
}),
},
"prior nested map": {
&configschema.Block{
BlockTypes: map[string]*configschema.NestedBlock{
"foo": {
Nesting: configschema.NestingMap,
Block: configschema.Block{
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"bar": {
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
Computed: true,
},
"baz": {
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
configschema: Handle nested blocks containing dynamic-typed attributes We need to make the collection itself be a tuple or object rather than list or map in this case, since otherwise all of the elements of the collection are constrained to be of the same type and that isn't the intent of a provider indicating that it accepts any type.
2018-08-23 00:45:34 +02:00
Computed: true,
},
},
},
},
},
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"bloop": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingMap,
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"blop": {
Type: cty.String,
Required: true,
},
},
},
Optional: true,
},
},
configschema: Handle nested blocks containing dynamic-typed attributes We need to make the collection itself be a tuple or object rather than list or map in this case, since otherwise all of the elements of the collection are constrained to be of the same type and that isn't the intent of a provider indicating that it accepts any type.
2018-08-23 00:45:34 +02:00
},
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.MapVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"a": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("beep"),
"baz": cty.StringVal("boop"),
}),
"b": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("blep"),
"baz": cty.StringVal("boot"),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.MapVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"a": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("glub"),
}),
"b": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("blub"),
}),
}),
configschema: Handle nested blocks containing dynamic-typed attributes We need to make the collection itself be a tuple or object rather than list or map in this case, since otherwise all of the elements of the collection are constrained to be of the same type and that isn't the intent of a provider indicating that it accepts any type.
2018-08-23 00:45:34 +02:00
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.MapVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"a": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("bap"),
"baz": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
"c": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("bosh"),
"baz": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.MapVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"a": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("glub"),
}),
"c": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("blub"),
}),
}),
configschema: Handle nested blocks containing dynamic-typed attributes We need to make the collection itself be a tuple or object rather than list or map in this case, since otherwise all of the elements of the collection are constrained to be of the same type and that isn't the intent of a provider indicating that it accepts any type.
2018-08-23 00:45:34 +02:00
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.MapVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"a": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("bap"),
"baz": cty.StringVal("boop"),
}),
"c": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("bosh"),
"baz": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.MapVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"a": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("glub"),
}),
"c": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("blub"),
}),
}),
configschema: Handle nested blocks containing dynamic-typed attributes We need to make the collection itself be a tuple or object rather than list or map in this case, since otherwise all of the elements of the collection are constrained to be of the same type and that isn't the intent of a provider indicating that it accepts any type.
2018-08-23 00:45:34 +02:00
}),
},
"prior nested map with dynamic": {
&configschema.Block{
BlockTypes: map[string]*configschema.NestedBlock{
"foo": {
Nesting: configschema.NestingMap,
Block: configschema.Block{
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"bar": {
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
Computed: true,
},
"baz": {
Type: cty.DynamicPseudoType,
Optional: true,
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
Computed: true,
},
},
},
},
},
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"bloop": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingMap,
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"blop": {
Type: cty.DynamicPseudoType,
Required: true,
},
},
},
Optional: true,
},
},
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
},
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"a": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("beep"),
"baz": cty.StringVal("boop"),
}),
"b": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("blep"),
take dynamic types into account when comparing set If a NestingList or NestingMap contains a dynamic type, they must be handled as a cty.Tuple and cty.Object respectively, because the elements may not have precisely matching types.
2020-10-16 02:03:02 +02:00
"baz": cty.ListVal([]cty.Value{cty.StringVal("boot")}),
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
}),
}),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"a": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("glub"),
}),
"b": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.NumberIntVal(13),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"a": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("bap"),
"baz": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
"c": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("bosh"),
take dynamic types into account when comparing set If a NestingList or NestingMap contains a dynamic type, they must be handled as a cty.Tuple and cty.Object respectively, because the elements may not have precisely matching types.
2020-10-16 02:03:02 +02:00
"baz": cty.NullVal(cty.List(cty.String)),
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
}),
}),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"a": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("blep"),
}),
"c": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.NumberIntVal(13),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"a": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("bap"),
"baz": cty.StringVal("boop"),
}),
"c": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("bosh"),
take dynamic types into account when comparing set If a NestingList or NestingMap contains a dynamic type, they must be handled as a cty.Tuple and cty.Object respectively, because the elements may not have precisely matching types.
2020-10-16 02:03:02 +02:00
"baz": cty.NullVal(cty.List(cty.String)),
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
}),
}),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"a": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("blep"),
}),
"c": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.NumberIntVal(13),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
}),
},
"prior nested set": {
&configschema.Block{
BlockTypes: map[string]*configschema.NestedBlock{
"foo": {
Nesting: configschema.NestingSet,
Block: configschema.Block{
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"bar": {
// This non-computed attribute will serve
// as our matching key for propagating
// "baz" from elements in the prior value.
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
},
"baz": {
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
Computed: true,
},
},
},
},
},
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"bloop": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingSet,
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"blop": {
Type: cty.String,
Required: true,
},
"bleep": {
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
},
},
},
Optional: true,
},
},
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
},
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("beep"),
"baz": cty.StringVal("boop"),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("blep"),
"baz": cty.StringVal("boot"),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("glubglub"),
"bleep": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("glubglub"),
"bleep": cty.StringVal("beep"),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("beep"),
"baz": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("bosh"),
"baz": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("glubglub"),
"bleep": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("glub"),
"bleep": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("beep"),
"baz": cty.StringVal("boop"),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("bosh"),
plans/objchange: Don't presume unknown for values unset in config Previously we would construct a proposed new state with unknown values in place of any not-set-in-config computed attributes, trying to save the provider a little work in specifying that itself. Unfortunately that turns out to be problematic because it conflates two concerns: attributes can be explicitly set in configuration to an unknown value, in which case the final result of that unknown overrides any default value the provider might normally populate. In other words, this allows the provider to recognize in the proposed new state the difference between an Optional+Computed attribute being set to unknown in the config vs not being set in the config at all. The provider now has the responsibility to replace these proposed null values with unknown values during PlanResourceChange if it expects to select a value during the apply step. It may also populate a known value if the final result can be predicted at plan time, as is the case for constant defaults specified in the provider code. This change comes from a realization that from core's perspective the helper/schema ideas of zero values, explicit default values, and customizediff tweaks are all just examples of "defaults", and by allowing the provider to see during plan whether these attributes are being explicitly set in configuration and thus decide whether the default will be provided immediately during plan or deferred until apply.
2019-02-07 23:01:39 +01:00
"baz": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("glubglub"),
"bleep": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.StringVal("glub"),
"bleep": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: Don't presume unknown for values unset in config Previously we would construct a proposed new state with unknown values in place of any not-set-in-config computed attributes, trying to save the provider a little work in specifying that itself. Unfortunately that turns out to be problematic because it conflates two concerns: attributes can be explicitly set in configuration to an unknown value, in which case the final result of that unknown overrides any default value the provider might normally populate. In other words, this allows the provider to recognize in the proposed new state the difference between an Optional+Computed attribute being set to unknown in the config vs not being set in the config at all. The provider now has the responsibility to replace these proposed null values with unknown values during PlanResourceChange if it expects to select a value during the apply step. It may also populate a known value if the final result can be predicted at plan time, as is the case for constant defaults specified in the provider code. This change comes from a realization that from core's perspective the helper/schema ideas of zero values, explicit default values, and customizediff tweaks are all just examples of "defaults", and by allowing the provider to see during plan whether these attributes are being explicitly set in configuration and thus decide whether the default will be provided immediately during plan or deferred until apply.
2019-02-07 23:01:39 +01:00
}),
},
"sets differing only by unknown": {
&configschema.Block{
BlockTypes: map[string]*configschema.NestedBlock{
"multi": {
Nesting: configschema.NestingSet,
Block: configschema.Block{
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"optional": {
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
Computed: true,
},
},
},
},
},
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"bloop": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingSet,
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"blop": {
Type: cty.String,
Required: true,
},
},
},
Optional: true,
},
},
plans/objchange: Don't presume unknown for values unset in config Previously we would construct a proposed new state with unknown values in place of any not-set-in-config computed attributes, trying to save the provider a little work in specifying that itself. Unfortunately that turns out to be problematic because it conflates two concerns: attributes can be explicitly set in configuration to an unknown value, in which case the final result of that unknown overrides any default value the provider might normally populate. In other words, this allows the provider to recognize in the proposed new state the difference between an Optional+Computed attribute being set to unknown in the config vs not being set in the config at all. The provider now has the responsibility to replace these proposed null values with unknown values during PlanResourceChange if it expects to select a value during the apply step. It may also populate a known value if the final result can be predicted at plan time, as is the case for constant defaults specified in the provider code. This change comes from a realization that from core's perspective the helper/schema ideas of zero values, explicit default values, and customizediff tweaks are all just examples of "defaults", and by allowing the provider to see during plan whether these attributes are being explicitly set in configuration and thus decide whether the default will be provided immediately during plan or deferred until apply.
2019-02-07 23:01:39 +01:00
},
cty.NullVal(cty.DynamicPseudoType),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"multi": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"optional": cty.UnknownVal(cty.String),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"optional": cty.UnknownVal(cty.String),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.UnknownVal(cty.String),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.UnknownVal(cty.String),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: Don't presume unknown for values unset in config Previously we would construct a proposed new state with unknown values in place of any not-set-in-config computed attributes, trying to save the provider a little work in specifying that itself. Unfortunately that turns out to be problematic because it conflates two concerns: attributes can be explicitly set in configuration to an unknown value, in which case the final result of that unknown overrides any default value the provider might normally populate. In other words, this allows the provider to recognize in the proposed new state the difference between an Optional+Computed attribute being set to unknown in the config vs not being set in the config at all. The provider now has the responsibility to replace these proposed null values with unknown values during PlanResourceChange if it expects to select a value during the apply step. It may also populate a known value if the final result can be predicted at plan time, as is the case for constant defaults specified in the provider code. This change comes from a realization that from core's perspective the helper/schema ideas of zero values, explicit default values, and customizediff tweaks are all just examples of "defaults", and by allowing the provider to see during plan whether these attributes are being explicitly set in configuration and thus decide whether the default will be provided immediately during plan or deferred until apply.
2019-02-07 23:01:39 +01:00
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"multi": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
// These remain distinct because unknown values never
// compare equal. They may be consolidated together once
// the values become known, though.
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"optional": cty.UnknownVal(cty.String),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"optional": cty.UnknownVal(cty.String),
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
}),
}),
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
"bloop": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.UnknownVal(cty.String),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"blop": cty.UnknownVal(cty.String),
}),
}),
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
}),
},
added empty list test case
2020-09-07 04:16:31 +02:00
"nested list in set": {
Converting ListVal to ListVal instead of TupleVal in setElementCompareValue
2020-09-04 14:46:40 +02:00
&configschema.Block{
BlockTypes: map[string]*configschema.NestedBlock{
"foo": {
Nesting: configschema.NestingSet,
Block: configschema.Block{
BlockTypes: map[string]*configschema.NestedBlock{
"bar": {
Nesting: configschema.NestingList,
Block: configschema.Block{
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"baz": {
Type: cty.String,
},
"qux": {
Type: cty.String,
Computed: true,
Optional: true,
},
},
},
},
},
},
},
},
},
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.ListVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"baz": cty.StringVal("beep"),
"qux": cty.StringVal("boop"),
}),
}),
}),
}),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.ListVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"baz": cty.StringVal("beep"),
"qux": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
}),
}),
}),
}),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.ListVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"baz": cty.StringVal("beep"),
"qux": cty.StringVal("boop"),
}),
}),
}),
}),
}),
},
added empty list test case
2020-09-07 04:16:31 +02:00
"empty nested list in set": {
&configschema.Block{
BlockTypes: map[string]*configschema.NestedBlock{
"foo": {
Nesting: configschema.NestingSet,
Block: configschema.Block{
BlockTypes: map[string]*configschema.NestedBlock{
"bar": {
Nesting: configschema.NestingList,
Block: configschema.Block{},
},
},
},
},
},
},
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.ListValEmpty((&configschema.Block{}).ImpliedType()),
}),
}),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.ListValEmpty((&configschema.Block{}).ImpliedType()),
}),
}),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.ListValEmpty((&configschema.Block{}).ImpliedType()),
}),
}),
}),
},
take dynamic types into account when comparing set If a NestingList or NestingMap contains a dynamic type, they must be handled as a cty.Tuple and cty.Object respectively, because the elements may not have precisely matching types.
2020-10-16 02:03:02 +02:00
"nested list with dynamic in set": {
&configschema.Block{
BlockTypes: map[string]*configschema.NestedBlock{
"foo": {
Nesting: configschema.NestingSet,
Block: configschema.Block{
BlockTypes: map[string]*configschema.NestedBlock{
"bar": {
Nesting: configschema.NestingList,
Block: configschema.Block{
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"baz": {
Type: cty.DynamicPseudoType,
},
},
},
},
},
},
},
},
},
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.TupleVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"baz": cty.StringVal("true"),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"baz": cty.ListVal([]cty.Value{cty.StringVal("true")}),
}),
}),
}),
}),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.TupleVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"baz": cty.StringVal("true"),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"baz": cty.ListVal([]cty.Value{cty.StringVal("true")}),
}),
}),
}),
}),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.TupleVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"baz": cty.StringVal("true"),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"baz": cty.ListVal([]cty.Value{cty.StringVal("true")}),
}),
}),
}),
}),
}),
},
"nested map with dynamic in set": {
&configschema.Block{
BlockTypes: map[string]*configschema.NestedBlock{
"foo": {
Nesting: configschema.NestingSet,
Block: configschema.Block{
BlockTypes: map[string]*configschema.NestedBlock{
"bar": {
Nesting: configschema.NestingMap,
Block: configschema.Block{
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"baz": {
Type: cty.DynamicPseudoType,
Optional: true,
},
},
},
},
},
},
},
},
},
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bing": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"baz": cty.StringVal("true"),
}),
"bang": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"baz": cty.ListVal([]cty.Value{cty.StringVal("true")}),
}),
}),
}),
}),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bing": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"baz": cty.ListVal([]cty.Value{cty.StringVal("true")}),
}),
}),
}),
}),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bing": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"baz": cty.ListVal([]cty.Value{cty.StringVal("true")}),
}),
}),
}),
}),
}),
},
handle non-null, but empty NestingMap in a set
2020-10-16 03:21:14 +02:00
"empty nested map in set": {
&configschema.Block{
BlockTypes: map[string]*configschema.NestedBlock{
"foo": {
Nesting: configschema.NestingSet,
Block: configschema.Block{
BlockTypes: map[string]*configschema.NestedBlock{
"bar": {
Nesting: configschema.NestingMap,
Block: configschema.Block{
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"baz": {
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
},
},
},
},
},
},
},
},
},
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.MapValEmpty(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{
"baz": cty.String,
})),
}),
}),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.MapVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bing": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"baz": cty.StringVal("true"),
}),
}),
}),
}),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.MapVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bing": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"baz": cty.StringVal("true"),
}),
}),
}),
}),
}),
},
plans/objchange: extended ProposedNewObject to descend into attributes with NestedType objects. There are a handful of mostly cosmetic changes in this PR which likely make the diff awkward to read; I renamed several functions to (hopefully) clarifiy which funcs worked with Blocks vs other types. I also extracted some small code snippets into their own functions for reusability. The code that descends into attributes with NestedTypes is similar to the block-handling code, and differs in all the ways blocks and attributes differ: null is valid for attributes, unlike blocks which can only be present or empty.
2021-02-10 14:31:21 +01:00
// This example has a mixture of optional, computed and required in a deeply-nested NestedType attribute
"deeply NestedType": {
&configschema.Block{
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"foo": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingSingle,
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"bar": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingSingle,
Attributes: testAttributes,
},
Required: true,
},
"baz": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingSingle,
Attributes: testAttributes,
},
Optional: true,
},
},
},
Optional: true,
},
},
},
// prior
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.NullVal(cty.DynamicPseudoType),
"baz": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"optional": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
"computed": cty.StringVal("hello"),
"optional_computed": cty.StringVal("prior"),
"required": cty.StringVal("present"),
}),
}),
}),
// config
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.UnknownVal(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{ // explicit unknown from the config
"optional": cty.String,
"computed": cty.String,
"optional_computed": cty.String,
"required": cty.String,
})),
"baz": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"optional": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
"computed": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
"optional_computed": cty.StringVal("hello"),
"required": cty.StringVal("present"),
}),
}),
}),
// want
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.UnknownVal(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{ // explicit unknown preserved from the config
"optional": cty.String,
"computed": cty.String,
"optional_computed": cty.String,
"required": cty.String,
})),
"baz": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"optional": cty.NullVal(cty.String), // config is null
"computed": cty.StringVal("hello"), // computed values come from prior
"optional_computed": cty.StringVal("hello"), // config takes precedent over prior in opt+computed
"required": cty.StringVal("present"), // value from config
}),
}),
}),
},
"deeply nested set": {
&configschema.Block{
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"foo": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingSet,
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"bar": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingSet,
Attributes: testAttributes,
},
Required: true,
},
},
},
Optional: true,
},
},
},
// prior values
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"optional": cty.StringVal("prior"),
"computed": cty.StringVal("prior"),
"optional_computed": cty.StringVal("prior"),
"required": cty.StringVal("prior"),
}),
}),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"optional": cty.StringVal("other_prior"),
"computed": cty.StringVal("other_prior"),
"optional_computed": cty.StringVal("other_prior"),
"required": cty.StringVal("other_prior"),
})}),
}),
}),
}),
// config differs from prior
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"optional": cty.StringVal("configured"),
"computed": cty.NullVal(cty.String), // computed attrs are null in config
"optional_computed": cty.StringVal("configured"),
"required": cty.StringVal("configured"),
})}),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"optional": cty.NullVal(cty.String), // explicit null in config
"computed": cty.NullVal(cty.String), // computed attrs are null in config
"optional_computed": cty.StringVal("other_configured"),
"required": cty.StringVal("other_configured"),
})}),
}),
}),
}),
// want:
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"foo": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"optional": cty.StringVal("configured"),
"computed": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
"optional_computed": cty.StringVal("configured"),
"required": cty.StringVal("configured"),
})}),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"optional": cty.NullVal(cty.String), // explicit null in config is preserved
"computed": cty.NullVal(cty.String),
"optional_computed": cty.StringVal("other_configured"),
"required": cty.StringVal("other_configured"),
})}),
}),
}),
}),
},
return the properly-typed nulls, instead of empty containers, in proposedNewNestedType
2021-02-12 19:37:45 +01:00
"expected null NestedTypes": {
&configschema.Block{
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"single": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingSingle,
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"bar": {Type: cty.String},
},
},
Optional: true,
},
"list": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingList,
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"bar": {Type: cty.String},
},
},
Optional: true,
},
"set": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingSet,
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"bar": {Type: cty.String},
},
},
Optional: true,
},
"map": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingMap,
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"bar": {Type: cty.String},
},
},
Optional: true,
},
"nested_map": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingMap,
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"inner": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingSingle,
Attributes: testAttributes,
},
},
},
},
Optional: true,
},
},
},
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"single": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{"bar": cty.StringVal("baz")}),
"list": cty.ListVal([]cty.Value{cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{"bar": cty.StringVal("baz")})}),
"map": cty.MapVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"map_entry": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{"bar": cty.StringVal("baz")}),
}),
"set": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{"bar": cty.StringVal("baz")})}),
"nested_map": cty.MapVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"a": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"inner": cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"optional": cty.StringVal("foo"),
"computed": cty.StringVal("foo"),
"optional_computed": cty.StringVal("foo"),
"required": cty.StringVal("foo"),
}),
}),
}),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
handle null NestingSingle values Null NestingSingle attributes were not being handled in ProposedNew
2021-08-18 19:52:18 +02:00
"single": cty.NullVal(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{"bar": cty.String})),
return the properly-typed nulls, instead of empty containers, in proposedNewNestedType
2021-02-12 19:37:45 +01:00
"list": cty.NullVal(cty.List(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{"bar": cty.String}))),
"map": cty.NullVal(cty.Map(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{"bar": cty.String}))),
"set": cty.NullVal(cty.Set(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{"bar": cty.String}))),
"nested_map": cty.NullVal(cty.Map(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{
"inner": cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{
"optional": cty.String,
"computed": cty.String,
"optional_computed": cty.String,
"required": cty.String,
}),
}))),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
handle null NestingSingle values Null NestingSingle attributes were not being handled in ProposedNew
2021-08-18 19:52:18 +02:00
"single": cty.NullVal(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{"bar": cty.String})),
return the properly-typed nulls, instead of empty containers, in proposedNewNestedType
2021-02-12 19:37:45 +01:00
"list": cty.NullVal(cty.List(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{"bar": cty.String}))),
"map": cty.NullVal(cty.Map(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{"bar": cty.String}))),
"set": cty.NullVal(cty.Set(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{"bar": cty.String}))),
"nested_map": cty.NullVal(cty.Map(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{
optional attrs should not be in ProposedNew
2021-09-10 15:38:59 +02:00
"inner": cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{
return the properly-typed nulls, instead of empty containers, in proposedNewNestedType
2021-02-12 19:37:45 +01:00
"optional": cty.String,
"computed": cty.String,
"optional_computed": cty.String,
"required": cty.String,
optional attrs should not be in ProposedNew
2021-09-10 15:38:59 +02:00
}),
return the properly-typed nulls, instead of empty containers, in proposedNewNestedType
2021-02-12 19:37:45 +01:00
}))),
}),
},
handle empty containers in ProposedNew NestedTypes Empty containers of NestedTypes were not handled in ProposedNew, causing plans to be submitted with null values where there was configuration present.
2021-09-14 22:36:45 +02:00
"expected empty NestedTypes": {
&configschema.Block{
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"set": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingSet,
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"bar": {Type: cty.String},
},
},
Optional: true,
},
"map": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingMap,
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"bar": {Type: cty.String},
},
},
Optional: true,
},
},
},
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"map": cty.MapValEmpty(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{"bar": cty.String})),
"set": cty.SetValEmpty(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{"bar": cty.String})),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"map": cty.MapValEmpty(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{"bar": cty.String})),
"set": cty.SetValEmpty(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{"bar": cty.String})),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"map": cty.MapValEmpty(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{"bar": cty.String})),
"set": cty.SetValEmpty(cty.Object(map[string]cty.Type{"bar": cty.String})),
}),
},
"optional types set replacement": {
&configschema.Block{
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"set": {
NestedType: &configschema.Object{
Nesting: configschema.NestingSet,
Attributes: map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"bar": {
Type: cty.String,
Required: true,
},
},
},
Optional: true,
},
},
},
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"set": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("old"),
}),
}),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"set": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("new"),
}),
}),
}),
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"set": cty.SetVal([]cty.Value{
cty.ObjectVal(map[string]cty.Value{
"bar": cty.StringVal("new"),
}),
}),
}),
},
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
}
for name, test := range tests {
t.Run(name, func(t *testing.T) {
plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).
2021-02-05 19:41:06 +01:00
got := ProposedNew(test.Schema, test.Prior, test.Config)
plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.
2018-08-21 03:45:34 +02:00
if !got.RawEquals(test.Want) {
t.Errorf("wrong result\ngot: %swant: %s", dump.Value(got), dump.Value(test.Want))
}
})
}
}
plans/objchange: extended ProposedNewObject to descend into attributes with NestedType objects. There are a handful of mostly cosmetic changes in this PR which likely make the diff awkward to read; I renamed several functions to (hopefully) clarifiy which funcs worked with Blocks vs other types. I also extracted some small code snippets into their own functions for reusability. The code that descends into attributes with NestedTypes is similar to the block-handling code, and differs in all the ways blocks and attributes differ: null is valid for attributes, unlike blocks which can only be present or empty.
2021-02-10 14:31:21 +01:00
var testAttributes = map[string]*configschema.Attribute{
"optional": {
Type: cty.String,
Optional: true,
},
"computed": {
Type: cty.String,
Computed: true,
},
"optional_computed": {
Type: cty.String,
Computed: true,
Optional: true,
},
"required": {
Type: cty.String,
Required: true,
},
}