We can't generate a valid plan file without a backend configuration to
write into it, but it's the responsibility of the caller (the command
package) to manage the backend configuration mechanism, so we require it
to tell us what to write here.
This feels a little strange because the backend in principle knows its
own config, but in practice the backend only knows the _processed_ version
of the config, not the raw configuration value that was used to configure
it.
converted the existing testPlanState() from terraform.State to
states.State to fix various plan tests.
reverted the "bandaid" in plans/planfile/tfplan.go - at this moment the
backend tests do not include backend configuration, and so the planfile
package can write the plan file but not read it back in. That will be
revisted in a separate track of work.
I have no confidence in the change to plans/planfile/tfplan.go. The
tests were passing an empty backend config, which planfile was able to
write to a file but not read from the same file. This change let me move
past that and it did not break any tests in the planfile package, but I
am concerned that it introduces undesired behavior.
incoming values
Addresses an odd state where the priorV of an object to be changed is
known but null.
While this situation should not happen, it seemed prudent to ensure that
core is resilient to providers sending incorrect values (which might
also occur with manually edited state).
The "config" package is no longer used and will be removed as part
of the 0.12 release cleanup. Since configschema is part of the
"new world" of configuration modelling, it makes more sense for
it to live as a subdirectory of the newer "configs" package.
The new config loader requires some steps to happen in a different
order, particularly in regard to knowing the schema in order to
decode the configuration.
Here we lean directly on the configschema package, rather than
on helper/schema.Backend as before, because it's generally
sufficient for our needs here and this prepares us for the
helper/schema package later moving out into its own repository
to seed a "plugin SDK".
In #15884 we adjusted the plan output to give an explicit command to run
to apply a plan, whereas before this command was just alluded to in the
prose.
Since releasing that, we've got good feedback that it's confusing to
include such instructions when Terraform is running in a workflow
automation tool, because such tools usually abstract away exactly what
commands are run and require users to take different actions to
proceed through the workflow.
To accommodate such environments while retaining helpful messages for
normal CLI usage, here we introduce a new environment variable
TF_IN_AUTOMATION which, when set to a non-empty value, is a hint to
Terraform that it isn't being run in an interactive command shell and
it should thus tone down the "next steps" messaging.
The documentation for this setting is included as part of the "...in
automation" guide since it's not generally useful in other cases. We also
intentionally disclaim comprehensive support for this since we want to
avoid creating an extreme number of "if running in automation..."
codepaths that would increase the testing matrix and hurt maintainability.
The focus is specifically on the output of the three commands we give in
the automation guide, which at present means the following two situations:
* "terraform init" does not include the final paragraphs that suggest
running "terraform plan" and tell you in what situations you might need
to re-run "terraform init".
* "terraform plan" does not include the final paragraphs that either
warn about not specifying "-out=..." or instruct to run
"terraform apply" with the generated plan file.
We are changing the behaviour of the "stub" diff operation to just have
the pre/post-diff hooks skipped on eval, meaning that the test against
CountHook will ultimately be meaningless and fail, hence we need a
different test here that tests it on a more general level.
Fixes#11504
The local backend should error if `terraform plan` is called in a
directory with no Terraform config files (same behavior as 0.8.x).
**New behavior:** We now allow `terraform plan -destroy` with no
configuration files since that seems reasonable.
The local backend implementation is an implementation of
backend.Enhanced that recreates all the behavior of the CLI but through
the backend interface.
Martin Atkins