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.
- 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).
This is needed for cases where a variable may be fetched and become
a member of a set, and thus the whole set is marked, which means
ElementIterator will panic on unmarked values
The Legacy SDK cannot handle missing strings from objects in sets, and
will insert an empty string when planning the missing value. This
subverts the `couldHaveUnknownBlockPlaceholder` check, and causes
errors when `dynamic` is used with NestingSet blocks.
We don't have a separate codepath to handle the internals of
AssertObjectCompatible differently for the legacy SDK, but we can treat
empty strings as null strings within set objects to avoid the failed
assertions.
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.
Remove marks for object compatibility tests to allow apply
to continue. Adds a block to the test provider to use
in testing, and extends the sensitivity apply test to include a block
In order to handle various edge cases during a full destroy, add
FullDestroy to the synchronized changes so we can attempt to deduce if
the plan was created from `terraform destroy`.
It's possible that the plan was created by removing all resourced from
the configuration, but in that case the end result is the same. Any of
the edge cases with provider or destroy provisioner configurations would
not apply, since there would not be any configuration references to
resolve.
Since the refreshed state is now an artifact of the plan process, it
makes sense to add it to the Plan type, rather than adding an additional
return value to the Context.Plan method.
Mark sensitivity on a value. However, when the value is encoded to send to the
provider to produce a changeset we must remove the marks, so unmark the value
and remark it with the saved path afterwards
The couldHaveUnknownBlockPlaceholder helper was added to detect when a
set block has a placeholder for an unknown number of values. This worked
fine when the number increased from 1, but we were still attempting to
validate the unknown placeholder against the empty set when the final
count turned out to be 0.
Since we can't differentiate the unknown dynamic placeholder value from
an actual set value, we have to skip that object's validation
altogether.
* Update error message for apply validation
Add a hint that the validation failure has occurred at the root of the resource
schema to the error message. This is because the root resource has an empty
path when being validated and the path is being relied upon to provide context
into the error message.
This is a baby-step towards an intended future where all Terraform actions
which have side-effects in either remote objects or the Terraform state
can go through the plan+apply workflow.
This initial change is focused only on allowing plan+apply for changes to
root module output values, so that these can be written into a new state
snapshot (for consumption by terraform_remote_state elsewhere) without
having to go outside of the primary workflow by running
"terraform refresh".
This is also better than "terraform refresh" because it gives an
opportunity to review the proposed changes before applying them, as we're
accustomed to with resource changes.
The downside here is that Terraform Core was not designed to produce
accurate changesets for root module outputs. Although we added a place for
it in the plan model in Terraform 0.12, Terraform Core currently produces
inaccurate changesets there which don't properly track the prior values.
We're planning to rework Terraform Core's evaluation approach in a
forthcoming release so it would itself be able to distinguish between the
prior state and the planned new state to produce an accurate changeset,
but this commit introduces a temporary stop-gap solution of implementing
the logic up in the local backend code, where we can freeze a snapshot of
the prior state before we take any other actions and then use that to
produce an accurate output changeset to decide whether the plan has
externally-visible side-effects and render any changes to output values.
This temporary approach should be replaced by a more appropriately-placed
solution in Terraform Core in a release, which should then allow further
behaviors in similar vein, such as user-visible drift detection for
resource instances.
Since modules need to be evaluated as whole objects, yet the outputs are
all handled individually, we need a method to collect and return all
output changes for a module from the plan, including all known
module instances.
a large refactor to addrs.AbsProviderConfig, embedding the addrs.Provider instead of a Type string. I've added and updated tests, added some Legacy functions to support older state formats and shims, and added a normalization step when reading v4 (current) state files (not the added tests under states/statefile/roundtrip which work with both current and legacy-style AbsProviderConfig strings).
The remaining 'fixme' and 'todo' comments are mostly going to be addressed in a subsequent PR and involve looking up a given local provider config's FQN. This is fine for now as we are only working with default assumption.
* Introduce "Local" terminology for non-absolute provider config addresses
In a future change AbsProviderConfig and LocalProviderConfig are going to
become two entirely distinct types, rather than Abs embedding Local as
written here. This naming change is in preparation for that subsequent
work, which will also include introducing a new "ProviderConfig" type
that is an interface that AbsProviderConfig and LocalProviderConfig both
implement.
This is intended to be largely just a naming change to get started, so
we can deal with all of the messy renaming. However, this did also require
a slight change in modeling where the Resource.DefaultProviderConfig
method has become Resource.DefaultProvider returning a Provider address
directly, because this method doesn't have enough information to construct
a true and accurate LocalProviderConfig -- it would need to refer to the
configuration to know what this module is calling the provider it has
selected.
In order to leave a trail to follow for subsequent work, all of the
changes here are intended to ensure that remaining work will become
obvious via compile-time errors when all of the following changes happen:
- The concept of "legacy" provider addresses is removed from the addrs
package, including removing addrs.NewLegacyProvider and
addrs.Provider.LegacyString.
- addrs.AbsProviderConfig stops having addrs.LocalProviderConfig embedded
in it and has an addrs.Provider and a string alias directly instead.
- The provider-schema-handling parts of Terraform core are updated to
work with addrs.Provider to identify providers, rather than legacy
strings.
In particular, there are still several codepaths here making legacy
provider address assumptions (in order to limit the scope of this change)
but I've made sure each one is doing something that relies on at least
one of the above changes not having been made yet.
* addrs: ProviderConfig interface
In a (very) few special situations in the main "terraform" package we need
to make runtime decisions about whether a provider config is absolute
or local.
We currently do that by exploiting the fact that AbsProviderConfig has
LocalProviderConfig nested inside of it and so in the local case we can
just ignore the wrapping AbsProviderConfig and use the embedded value.
In a future change we'll be moving away from that embedding and making
these two types distinct in order to represent that mapping between them
requires consulting a lookup table in the configuration, and so here we
introduce a new interface type ProviderConfig that can represent either
AbsProviderConfig or LocalProviderConfig decided dynamically at runtime.
This also includes the Config.ResolveAbsProviderAddr method that will
eventually be responsible for that local-to-absolute translation, so
that callers with access to the configuration can normalize to an
addrs.AbsProviderConfig given a non-nil addrs.ProviderConfig. That's
currently unused because existing callers are still relying on the
simplistic structural transform, but we'll switch them over in a later
commit.
* rename LocalType to LocalName
Co-authored-by: Kristin Laemmert <mildwonkey@users.noreply.github.com>
* huge change to weave new addrs.Provider into addrs.ProviderConfig
* terraform: do not include an empty string in the returned Providers /
Provisioners
- Fixed a minor bug where results included an extra empty string
If a planned NestingList block value looks like it may represent a
dynamic block, we don't check the length since it may be unknown. This
check was missing in the NestingSet case, but it applies for the same
reason.
<
If a dynamic block (in the HCL dynamic block extension sense) has an
unknown value for its for_each argument, it gets expanded to a single
placeholder block with all of its attributes set to a unknown values.
We can use this as part of a heuristic to relax our object compatibility
checks for situations where the plan included an object that appears to
be (but isn't necessarily) such a placeholder, allowing for the fact that
the one placeholder block could be replaced with zero or more real blocks
once the for_each value is known.
Previously our heuristic was too strict: it would match only if the only
block present was a dynamic placeholder. In practice, users may mix
dynamic blocks with static blocks of the same type, so we need to be more
liberal to avoid generating incorrect incompatibility errors in such
cases.
Kristin Laemmert