Although we don't typically do configuration-level string wrangling
directly in Terraform, we delegate to several other upstream libraries
that do. These upgrades all switch to newer versions that support the
latest definitions from Unicode 13, primarily affecting operations such
as converting strings to upper/lowercase or splitting strings into
component characters (substr, reverse, etc).
The tests for the upstream libraries didn't show any regressions from
these updates, so the Unicode 13 changes seem to be backward-compatible
additions rather than significant breaking changes.
(Our go.mod file had also become non-canonical in some ways, and the Go
toolchain fixed that as part of this work, causing a few extra style-only
diffs here that shouldn't cause any change in behavior.)
Instead of returning an error with no context about unexpected
attributes or incorrect types, notify users that the schema stored in
the state does not match the current provider.
User can only encounter this error if the providers have updated their
schemas since the state was stored. This would appears when running
`terraform show -json` to display the current state, or
`terraform show -json planfile` if that plan was created with
`-refresh=false`. In either case, the state must be refreshed in order
to properly json encoded.
The auto-approve argument was part of the arguments.Operation type,
which resulted in adding a silent -auto-approve flag to plan and
refresh. This was unintended, and is fixed in this commit by moving the
flag to the arguments.Apply type and updating the downstream callers.
Since this is still at an early phase and likely to change significantly
in future iterations, rather than attempting to guess on a suitable final
location for documenting the testing feature I've instead taken the
unusual approach of adding a new page that is explicitly about the
experiment. My expectation is that once we conclude the experiment we'll
replace this new page with a stub that just explains that there was once
an experiment and then links to whatever final feature unfolded from the
research.
The URL for this page is hard-coded into the warning message in the
"terraform test" command, so as we continue to evolve this feature in
future releases we'll need to update the callout note on the page about
which Terraform CLI version it's currently talking about, so users of
older versions can clearly see when they'd need to upgrade in order to
participate in a later incarnation of the experiment.
This is just a prototype to gather some feedback in our ongoing research
on integration testing of Terraform modules. The hope is that by having a
command integrated into Terraform itself it'll be easier for interested
module authors to give it a try, and also easier for us to iterate quickly
based on feedback without having to coordinate across multiple codebases.
Everything about this is subject to change even in future patch releases.
Since it's a CLI command rather than a configuration language feature it's
not using the language experiments mechanism, but generates a warning
similar to the one language experiments generate in order to be clear that
backward compatibility is not guaranteed.
As part of ongoing research into Terraform testing we'd like to use an
experimental feature to validate our current understanding that expressing
tests as part of the Terraform language, as opposed to in some other
language run alongside, is a good and viable way to write practical
module integration tests.
This initial experimental incarnation of that idea is implemented as a
provider, just because that's an easier extension point for research
purposes than a first-class language feature would be. Whether this would
ultimately emerge as a provider similar to this or as custom language
constructs will be a matter for future research, if this first
experiment confirms that tests written in the Terraform language are the
best direction to take.
The previous incarnation of this experiment was an externally-developed
provider apparentlymart/testing, listed on the Terraform Registry. That
helped with showing that there are some useful tests that we can write
in the Terraform language, but integrating such a provider into Terraform
will allow us to make use of it in the also-experimental "terraform test"
command, which will follow in subsequent commits, to see how this might
fit into a development workflow.
* Add support for plugin protocol v6
This PR turns on support for plugin protocol v6. A provider can
advertise itself as supporting protocol version 6 and terraform will
use the correct client.
Todo:
The "unmanaged" providers functionality does not support protocol
version, so at the moment terraform will continue to assume that
"unmanaged" providers are on protocol v5. This will require some
upstream work on go-plugin (I believe).
I would like to convert the builtin providers to use protocol v6 in a
future PR; however it is not necessary until we remove protocol v6.
* add e2e test for using both plugin protocol versions
- copied grpcwrap and made a version that returns protocol v6 provider
- copied the test provider, provider-simple, and made a version that's
using protocol v6 with the above fun
- added an e2etest
This code does not appear to have any effect. The operation request has
its PlanOutBackend field populated directly in the Meta.Operation
method, by calling m.backendForState.ForPlan().
I tested a trivial null-resource config with a Consul backend, and the
saved plans with and without this code present were identical.
When using the -lock-timeout option with the remote backend configured
in local operations mode, Terraform would fail to retry acquiring the
lock. This was caused by the lock error message having a missing Info
field, which the state manager requires to be present in order to
attempt retries.
Now that the possibility of extra provider nodes being added is gone, we
can skip the separate handling of configuration_aliases in the
ProviderConfigTransformer. Instead of adding concrete provider nodes for
configuration_aliases (which could be surprising later as the code
evolves), we implicitly add them based on the providers being passed in
by the parent module, using the same mechanism as non-aliased providers.
We can know that the `providers` map will be populated, because the
provider structures are validated while loading the configuration.
Remove the README that had old user-facing information, replacing
it with a doc.go that describes the package and points to the
plugin SDK for external consumers.
This commit extracts the remaining UI logic from the local backend,
and removes access to the direct CLI output. This is replaced with an
instance of a `views.Operation` interface, which codifies the current
requirements for the local backend to interact with the user.
The exception to this at present is interactivity: approving a plan
still depends on the `UIIn` field for the backend. This is out of scope
for this commit and can be revisited separately, at which time the
`UIOut` field can also be removed.
Changes in support of this:
- Some instances of direct error output have been replaced with
diagnostics, most notably in the emergency state backup handler. This
requires reformatting the error messages to allow the diagnostic
renderer to line-wrap them;
- The "in-automation" logic has moved out of the backend and into the
view implementation;
- The plan, apply, refresh, and import commands instantiate a view and
set it on the `backend.Operation` struct, as these are the only code
paths which call the `local.Operation()` method that requires it;
- The show command requires the plan rendering code which is now in the
views package, so there is a stub implementation of a `views.Show`
interface there.
Other refactoring work in support of migrating these commands to the
common views code structure will come in follow-up PRs, at which point
we will be able to remove the UI instances from the unit tests for those
commands.
Rachel Sharp