Each acceptance test step plays a Refresh, Plan, Apply for a given
config. This adds a follow up Plan and fails the test if it does not
come back empty. This will catch issues with perpetual, unresolvable
diffs that crop up here and there.
This is going to cause a lot of our existing acceptance tests to fail -
too many to roll into a single PR. I think the best plan is to land this
in master and then fix the failures (each of which should be catching a
legitimate provider bug) one by one until we get the provider suites
back to green.
If a given resource does not define an `Update` function, then all of
its attributes must be specified as `ForceNew`, lest Applys fail with
"doesn't support update" like #1367.
This is something we can detect automatically, so this adds a check for
it when we validate provider implementations.
Add `-target=resource` flag to core operations, allowing users to
target specific resources in their infrastructure. When `-target` is
used, the operation will only apply to that resource and its
dependencies.
The calculated dependencies are different depending on whether we're
running a normal operation or a `terraform destroy`.
Generally, "dependencies" refers to ancestors: resources falling
_before_ the target in the graph, because their changes are required to
accurately act on the target.
For destroys, "dependencies" are descendents: those resources which fall
_after_ the target. These resources depend on our target, which is going
to be destroyed, so they should also be destroyed.
We were previously only recording the schema version on refresh. This
caused the state to be incorrectly written after a `terraform apply`
causing subsequent commands to run the state through an unnecessary
migration.
Providers get a per-resource SchemaVersion integer that they can bump
when a resource's schema changes format. Each InstanceState with an
older recorded SchemaVersion than the cureent one is yielded to a
`MigrateSchema` function to be transformed such that it can be addressed
by the current version of the resource's Schema.
Removed fields show a customizable error message to the user when they
are used in a Terraform config. This is a tool that provider authors can
use for user feedback as they evolve their Schemas.
refs #957
Deprecated fields show a customizable warning message to the user when
they are used in a Terraform config. This is a tool that provider
authors can use for user feedback as they evolve their Schemas.
fixes#957
Now that readMap filters out '#' fields, when maps are nested in sets,
we exposed a related bug where a set was iterating over nested maps and
expected the '#' key to be present in those nested maps.
By skipping _all_ count fields when iterating over set keys, all is
right with the world again.
An `InstanceDiff` will include `ResourceAttrDiff` entries for the
"length" / `#` field of maps. This makes sense, since for something like
`terraform plan` it's useful to see when counts are changing.
The `DiffFieldReader` was not taking these entries into account when
reading maps out, and was therefore incorrectly returning maps that
included an extra `'#'` field, which was causing all sorts of havoc
for providers (extra tags on AWS instances, broken google compute
instance launch, possibly others).
* fixes#914 - extra tags on AWS instances
* fixes#883 - general core issue sprouted from #757
* removes the hack+TODO from #757
We were waiting until the higher-level (m schemaMap) diffString method
to apply defaults, which was messing with set hashcode evaluation for
cases when a field with a default is included in the hash function.
fixes#824
This was actually quite nasty as the first bug covered the second one…
The first bug is with HasChange. This function uses reflect.DeepEqual
to check if two instances are the same/have the same content. This
works fine for all types except for Set’s as they contain a function.
And reflect.DeepEqual will only say the functions are equal if they are
both nil (which they aren’t in a Set). So in effect it means that
currently HasChange will always say true for Set’s, even when they are
actually being equal.
As soon as you fix this problem, you will notice the second one (which
the added test is written for). Without saying you want the exact diff,
you will end up with a merged value which will (in most cases) be the
same.
Run all unit tests and a good part of the acc tests to verify this
works as expected and all look good.
Currently the `sync.Once` call is only used to init a Set in the add()
func. So when you add a value to a Set that is the result of one of the
Set operations (i.e. union, difference, intersect) the Set will be
reinitialised and the exiting values will be lost.
I don’t have a clue why this is showing up in my ACC tests just now, as
this code is in there for quite some time already. Somehow it seems to
have something to do with the refactoring of the helper/schema done
last week, as I cannot reproduce this with
47f02f80bc
/cc @svanharmelen - I think some logic changed after my refactor. I now
return Exists: true when Computed: true but the value might be blank to
note that the FieldReader FOUND a value, its just unknown. I think
before it didn't do that so the logic for GetOk has to be "does it exist
and is it _not_ computed"
Seems weird because I just realized there is no way to get the OLD value
of something if it is being computed now, but I looked and there are
tests that verify this and they're like... test #5 of Get. So, they're
not new meaning that must've been expected behavior? Hm. Let me know if
you find any other issues from acceptance tests
/cc @phinze - This is pretty straightforward, almost magically so. The
reason this works is because in `diffString` we use mapstructure[1] with
"weak decode mode" to just be responisble for turning anything into a
string.
[1]: https://github.com/mitchellh/mapstructure
Don't check if the root key is being computed for composite types.
Instead, continue recursing the composite type in order to check if
the sub-key, key.N, for each individual element is being computed.
Fixes a panic which occurs when validating a composite type where
the value is an unknown kind for the schema.
Paul Hinze