For this version of Terraform and forward, we no longer refuse to read
compatible state files written by future versions of Terraform. This is
a commitment that any changes to the semantics or format of the state
file after this commit will require a new state file version 5.
The result of this is that users of this Terraform version will be able
to share remote state with users of future versions, and all users will
be able to read and write state. This will be true until the next major
state file version is required.
This does not affect users of previous versions of Terraform, which will
continue to refuse to read state written by later versions.
This was mostly unused now, since we no longer needed to interrupt a
series of eval node executions.
The exception was the stopHook, which is still used to halt execution
when there's an interrupt. Since interrupting execution should not
complete successfully, we use a normal opaque error to halt everything,
and return it to the UI.
We can work on coalescing or hiding these if necessary in a separate PR.
Previously we were only verifying locked hashes for local archive zip
files, but if we have non-ziphash hashes available then we can and should
also verify that a local directory matches at least one of them.
This does mean that folks using filesystem mirrors but yet also running
Terraform across multiple platforms will need to take some extra care to
ensure the hashes pass on all relevant platforms, which could mean using
"terraform providers lock" to pre-seed their lock files with hashes across
all platforms, or could mean using the "packed" directory layout for the
filesystem mirror so that Terraform will end up in the install-from-archive
codepath instead of this install-from-directory codepath, and can thus
verify ziphash too.
(There's no additional documentation about the above here because there's
already general information about this in the lock file documentation
due to some similar -- though not identical -- situations with network
mirrors.)
We previously had some tests for some happy paths and a few specific
failures into an empty directory with no existing locks, but we didn't
have tests for the installer respecting existing lock file entries.
This is a start on a more exhaustive set of tests for the installer,
aiming to visit as many of the possible codepaths as we can reasonably
test using this mocking strategy. (Some other codepaths require different
underlying source implementations, etc, so we'll have to visit those in
other tests separately.)
This won't be a typical usage pattern for normal code, but will be useful
for tests that need to work with locks as input so that they don't need to
write out a temporary file on disk just to read it back in immediately.
* Update module-registry-protocol.html.md
1: There is a mismatch in the segment labels for the version query URL (system vs provider)
2: There is a discrepancy between the documentation and the actual generated request for retrieving module source code (URL segments 4 vs 3)
- There is no segment for "provider"
* Update module-registry-protocol.html.md
Changed ```:system``` to ```:provider``` for versions and source API URLs
These pages are thoroughly obsolete. Later, we'll delete and redirect them; for
now, we'll make sure the relevant pages are front-and-center in the sidebar if
someone somehow ends up on here.
Guides was already mostly gone. The two major remaining bits (the "core
workflow" guide and the "recommended practices" guide, which deserves a rename)
make much more sense as highly technical marketing material, and thus have a
natural home in the intro section.
Several `terraform` subcommands include sub-sub-commands; with our old sidebar
system, viewing those took you to an isolated "island" nav sidebar, away from
the main docs. The new navigation will adopt all these pages, so we don't need
to exile the reader to odd places.
As of this commit, that layout doesn't exist yet, but I'm isolating the one-line
changes to their own commit to try and keep your eyes from glazing over.
An earlier commit made this remove duplicates, which set the precedent
that this function is trying to canonically represent the _meaning_ of
the version constraints rather than exactly how they were expressed in
the configuration.
Continuing in that vein, now we'll also apply a consistent (though perhaps
often rather arbitrary) ordering to the terms, so that it doesn't change
due to irrelevant details like declarations being written in a different
order in the configuration.
The ordering here is intended to be reasonably intuitive for simple cases,
but constraint strings with many different constraints are hard to
interpret no matter how we order them so the main goal is consistency,
so those watching how the constraints change over time (e.g. in logs of
Terraform output, or in the dependency log file) will see fewer noisy
changes that don't actually mean anything.
We typically try to avoid making subjective, boasty claims in our
documentation in recent times, but there remained both some older
documentation that we've not recently revised and also some newer examples
that are, in retrospect, also perhaps more "boasty" than they need to be.
We prefer not to use this sort of boasty language because not everyone
using Terraform has the same background and experience, and so what is
"easy" or "intuitive" to one person may not be so to another person, and
that should not suggest that the second person is in any way wrong or
inadequate.
In reviewing some of our use of the word "easy" here I tried as much as
possible to surgically revise the existing content without getting drawn
into a big rewrite, but in some cases the content was either pretty
unsalvageable (due to talking about obsolete features that were removed
long ago) or required some broader changes to make the result hopefully
still get the same facts across. In those cases I've both removed some
content entirely or adjusted larger paragraphs.
This was not an exhaustive review and so I'm sure there's still plenty of
room for similar improvements elsewhere. I also resisted the urge to
update some pages that contain outdated information about currently-active
features.
My initial motivation here was to update the example output from
Terraform's top-level help list to match recent updates in the layout
and language used.
However, while here I took the opportunity to update some dated language
that was not consistent with our modern documentation writing style,
in particular including a totally unnecessary and potentially-alienating
claim that Terraform is "very easy to use". Our modern writing style
discourages this sort of "boastful" language and encourages us to focus on
the facts at hand.
This just reduces the amount of space between different elements on in the
main help output from four columns to two. The main motivation here was
to give some of the longer command descriptions a little more horizontal
breathing room, but subjectively I also find the tighter column gutters
easier to scan. Others may disagree, of course.
The short description of our commands (as shown in the main help output
from "terraform") was previously very inconsistent, using different
tense/mood for different commands. Some of the commands were also using
some terminology choices inconsistent with how we currently talk about
the related ideas in our documentation.
Here I've tried to add some consistency by first rewriting them all in
the imperative mood (except the ones that just are just subcommand
groupings), and tweaking some of the terminology to hopefully gel better
with how we present similar ideas in our recently-updated docs.
While working on this I inevitably spotted some similar inconsistencies
in the longer-form help output of some of the commands. I've not reviewed
all of these for consistency, but I did update some where the wording
was either left inconsstent with the short form changes I'd made or
where the prose stood out to me as particularly inconsistent with our
current usual documentation language style.
All of this is subjective, so I expect we'll continue to tweak these over
time as we continue to develop our documentation writing style based on
user questions and feedback.
Paul Thrasher