Allow the evaluation of resource pending deleting only during a full
destroy. With this change we can ensure deposed instances are not
evaluated under normal circumstances, but can be references when needed.
This also allows us to remove the fixup transformer that added
connections so temporary values would evaluate in the correct order when
referencing destroy nodes.
In the majority of cases, we do not want to evaluate resources that are
pending deletion since configuration references only can refer to
resources that is intended to be managed by the configuration. An
exception to that rule is when Terraform is performing a full `destroy`
operation, and providers need to evaluate existing resources for their
configuration.
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.
The loading of the initial instance state was inadvertently skipped when
-refresh=false, causing all resources to appear to be missing from the
state during plan.
If a data source refers to a indexed managed resource, we need to
re-target that reference to the containing resource for planning. Since
data sources use the same mechanism as depends_on for managed resource
references, they can only refer to resources as a whole.
Move the information about state from the "caveats" to the main
info section, using similar information to sensitive outputs.
Updates the header of the section from similar inspiration.
We can remove the caveat about changing map elements.
Add a little more text about the intended use case for ignore_changes,
as the common case of fixing erroneous provider behavior should not be
the primary motivation for the maintenance of this feature.
There are situations when a user may want to keep or exclude a map key
using `ignore_changes` which may not be listed directly in the
configuration. This didn't work previously because the transformation
always started off with the configuration, and would never encounter a
key if it was only present in the prior value.
* Split node_resource_abstract.go into two files, putting
NodeAbstractResourceInstance methods in their own file - it was getting
large enough to be tricky for (my) human eyeballs.
* un-exported the functions that were created as part of the EvalTree()
refactor; they did not need to be public.
We no longer need to support 0.12-and-earlier-style provider addresses
because users should've upgraded their existing configurations and states
on Terraform 0.13 already.
For now this is only checked in the "init" command, because various test
shims are still relying on the idea of legacy providers the core layer.
However, rejecting these during init is sufficient grounds to avoid
supporting legacy provider addresses in the new dependency lock file
format, and thus sets the stage for a more severe removal of legacy
provider support in a later commit.
The tmp directory path is longer on Macs than other systems and was wrapping
across lines when printed, breaking the string match in the test.
Fix suggested by @apparentlymart is to add two spaces before the leading
'-' when printing to prevent the diagnostic renderer wrapping the line.
As we add and remove support for different target platforms over time,
there will be transition periods where the available platforms for
each provider will be different than the available platforms for Terraform
CLI itself.
In recognition of that possibility, here we add a more specialized error
message for that situation which tries to explain the problem a little
more clearly than the generic error message that came before it.
In an ideal world we'd be able to detect situations where a newer or older
version has support in a similar vein to what we do with provider protocol
incompatibilities, but we don't currently have logic to fetch the data
necessary to implement that, so this is instead a presentation-only change
aimed at allowing some possible near-future changes to the supported
target platforms.
James Bardin