* command/jsonstate: remove redundant remarking of resource instance
ResourceInstanceObjectSrc.Decode already handles marking values with any marks stored in ri.Current.AttrSensitivePaths, so re-applying those marks is not necessary.
We've gotten reports of panics coming from this line of code, though I have yet to reproduce the panic in a test.
* Implement test to reproduce panic on #29042
Co-authored-by: David Alger <davidmalger@gmail.com>
Because our snippet generator is trying to select whole lines to include
in the snippet, it has some edge cases for odd situations where the
relevant source range starts or ends directly at a newline, which were
previously causing this logic to return out-of-bounds offsets into the
code snippet string.
Although arguably it'd be better for the original diagnostics to report
more reasonable source ranges, it's better for us to report a
slightly-inaccurate snippet than to crash altogether, and so we'll extend
our existing range checks to check both bounds of the string and thus
avoid downstreams having to deal with out-of-bounds indices.
For completeness here I also added some similar logic to the
human-oriented diagnostic formatter, which consumes the result of the
JSON diagnostic builder. That's not really needed with the additional
checks in the JSON diagnostic builder, but it's nice to reinforce that
this code can't panic (in this way, at least) even if its input isn't
valid.
* terraform: use hcl.MergeBodies instead of configs.MergeBodies for provider configuration
Previously, Terraform would return an error if the user supplied provider configuration via interactive input iff the configuration provided on the command line was missing any required attributes - even if those attributes were already set in config.
That error came from configs.MergeBody, which was designed for overriding valid configuration. It expects that the first ("base") body has all required attributes. However in the case of interactive input for provider configuration, it is perfectly valid if either or both bodies are missing required attributes, as long as the final body has all required attributes. hcl.MergeBodies works very similarly to configs.MergeBodies, with a key difference being that it only checks that all required attributes are present after the two bodies are merged.
I've updated the existing test to use interactive input vars and a schema with all required attributes. This test failed before switching from configs.MergeBodies to hcl.MergeBodies.
* add a command package test that shows that we can still have providers with dynamic configuration + required + interactive input merging
This test failed when buildProviderConfig still used configs.MergeBodies instead of hcl.MergeBodies
The -var command line option comes with the disadvantage that a user must
contend both with Terraform's own parser and with the parser in whichever
shell they've decided to use, and different shells on different platforms
have different rules.
Previously we've largely just assumed that folks know the appropriate
syntax for the shell they chose, but it seems that command lines involving
spaces and other special characters arise rarely enough in other commands
that Terraform is often the first time someone needs to learn the
appropriate syntax for their shell.
We can't possibly capture all of the details of all shells in our docs,
because that's far outside of our own scope, but hopefully this new
section will go some way to give some real examples that will help folks
figure out how to write suitable escape sequences, if they choose to
set complex variable values on the command line rather than in .tfvars
as we recommend elsewhere on this page.
This PR adds decoding for the upcoming "moved" blocks in configuration. This code is gated behind an experiment called EverythingIsAPlan, but the experiment is not registered as an active experiment, so it will never run (there is a test in place which will fail if the experiment is ever registered).
This also adds a new function to the Targetable interface, AddrType, to simplifying comparing two addrs.Targetable.
There is some validation missing still: this does not (yet) descend into resources to see if the actual resource types are the same (I've put this off in part because we will eventually need the provider schema to verify aliased resources, so I suspect this validation will have to happen later on).
Laura Pacilio