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.
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.
Our usual "ground rules" for mapping configschema to cty call for the
collection values representing nested block types to always be known and
non-null, using an empty collection to represent the absense of any blocks
of that type so that users can always safely use length(...) etc on them
without worrying about them sometimes being null.
However, due to some different behaviors in the legacy SDK we've allowed
it an exception to this rule which means that we can see unknown and null
collections in these positions in object values returned from provider
operations like PlanResourceChange and ApplyResourceChange when the legacy
SDK opt-out is activated.
As a consequence of this, we need to be mindful in our safety check
functions, like AssertObjectCompatible here, of tolerating these non-ideal
situations to allow the safety checks to complete. We run these checks
even when the provider requests an opt-out, because we want to note any
inconsistencies as WARNING level log lines to aid in debugging.
Since these error messages get printed in Terraform's output and we
encourage users to share them as part of bug reports, we should avoid
including sensitive information in them to reduce the risk of accidental
exposure.
Previously we were just asserting that the number of elements didn't grow
between planned and actual. We still can't precisely correlate elements in
sets with unknown values, but here we adapt some logic we added earlier
to config/hcl2shim to ensure that we can find a plausible correlation for
each element in each set to at least one element in the other set, and
thus catch more cases where set elements might vanish or appear between
plan and apply, for improved safety.
This will still generate false negatives in some cases where unknown
values are present due to having to assume correlation is intended
wherever it is possible, but we'll catch situations where the actual value
is obviously contrary to what was planned.
This function's goal is to ensure that the "final" plan value produced
by a provider during the apply step is always consistent with the known
parts of the planned value produced during the plan step.
Any error produced here indicates a bug in the provider.
Pam Selle