There are a few different reasons why a resource instance tracked in the
prior state might be considered an "orphan", but previously we reported
them all identically in the planned changes.
In order to help users understand the reason for a surprising planned
delete, we'll now try to specify an additional reason for the planned
deletion, covering all of the main reasons why that could happen.
This commit only introduces the new detail to the plans.Changes result,
though it also incidentally exposes it as part of the JSON plan result
in order to keep that working without returning errors in these new
cases. We'll expose this information in the human-oriented UI output in
a subsequent commit.
Configuration-driven moves are represented in the plan file by setting
the resource's `PrevRunAddr` to a different value than its `Addr`. For
JSON plan output, we here add a new field to resource changes,
`previous_address`, which is present and non-empty only if the resource
is planned to be moved.
Like the CLI UI, refresh-only plans will include move-only changes in
the resource drift JSON output. In normal plan mode, these are elided to
avoid redundancy with planned changes.
* jsonplan and jsonstate: include sensitive_values in state representations
A sensitive_values field has been added to the resource in state and planned values which is a map of all sensitive attributes with the values set to true.
It wasn't entirely clear to me if the values in state would suffice, or if we also need to consult the schema - I believe that this is sufficient for state files written since v0.15, and if that's incorrect or insufficient, I'll add in the provider schema check as well.
I also updated the documentation, and, since we've considered this before, bumped the FormatVersions for both jsonstate and jsonplan.
The set of paths which caused a resource update to require replacement
has been stored in the plan since 0.15.0 (#28201). This commit adds a
simple JSON representation of these paths, allowing consumers of this
format to determine exactly which paths caused the resource to be
replaced.
This representation is intentionally more loosely encoded than the JSON
state serialization of paths used for sensitive attributes. Instead of a
path step being represented by an object with type and value, we use a
more-JavaScripty heterogenous array of numbers and strings. Any
practical consumer of this format will likely traverse an object tree
using the index operator, which should work more easily with this
format. It also allows easy prefix comparison for consumers which are
tracking paths.
While updating the documentation to include this new field, I noticed
that some others were missing, so added them too.
Previously we were repeating some logic in the UI layer in order to
recover relevant additional context about a change to report to a user.
In order to help keep things consistent, and to have a clearer path for
adding more such things in the future, here we capture this user-facing
idea of an "action reason" within the plan model, and then use that
directly in order to decide how to describe the change to the user.
For the moment the "tainted" situation is the only one that gets a special
message, matching what we had before, but we can expand on this in future
in order to give better feedback about the other replace situations too.
This also preemptively includes the "replacing by request" reason, which
is currently not reachable but will be used in the near future as part of
implementing the -replace=... plan command line option to allow forcing
a particular object to be replaced.
So far we don't have any special reasons for anything other than replacing,
which makes sense because replacing is the only one that is in a sense
a special case of another action (Update), but this could expand to
other kinds of reasons in the future, such as explaining which of the
few different reasons a data source read might be deferred until the
apply step.
These links largely still go somewhere useful, but they have some kind of issue
revealed by our new link checker:
- Some of them point to a stale URL that redirects, and can be updated to the
new destination.
- Some of them point to anchors that don't exist (anymore?) in the destination.
- Some of them end up redirecting unnecessarily due to how the server handles
directory URLs without trailing slashes. Sorry, I know that's pointless, just,
humor me for the time being so we can get our CI green. 😭
In a couple cases, I've added invisible anchors to destination pages, either to
preserve an old habit or because the current anchors kind of suck due to being
particularly long or meandering.
Martin Atkins