Previously we were repeating some logic in the UI layer in order to
recover relevant additional context about a change to report to a user.
In order to help keep things consistent, and to have a clearer path for
adding more such things in the future, here we capture this user-facing
idea of an "action reason" within the plan model, and then use that
directly in order to decide how to describe the change to the user.
For the moment the "tainted" situation is the only one that gets a special
message, matching what we had before, but we can expand on this in future
in order to give better feedback about the other replace situations too.
This also preemptively includes the "replacing by request" reason, which
is currently not reachable but will be used in the near future as part of
implementing the -replace=... plan command line option to allow forcing
a particular object to be replaced.
So far we don't have any special reasons for anything other than replacing,
which makes sense because replacing is the only one that is in a sense
a special case of another action (Update), but this could expand to
other kinds of reasons in the future, such as explaining which of the
few different reasons a data source read might be deferred until the
apply step.
When an output value changes, we have a small amount of information we
can convey about its sensitivity. If either the output was previously
marked sensitive, or is currently marked sensitive in the config, this
is tracked in the output change data.
This commit encodes this boolean in the change struct's
`before_sensitive` and `after_sensitive` fields, in the a way which
matches resource value sensitivity. Since we have so little information
to work with, these two values will always be booleans, and always equal
each.
This is logically consistent with how else we want to obscure sensitive
data: a changing output which was or is marked sensitive should not have
the value shown in human-readable output.
Similar to `after_unknown`, `before_sensitive` and `after_sensitive` are
values with similar structure to `before` and `after` which encode the
presence of sensitive values in a planned change. These should be used
to obscure sensitive values from human-readable output.
These values follow the same structure as the `before` and `after`
values, replacing sensitive values with `true`, and non-sensitive values
with `false`. Following the `after_unknown` precedent, we omit
non-sensitive `false` values for object attributes/map values, to make
serialization more compact.
One difference from `after_unknown` is that a sensitive complex value
(collection or structural type) is replaced with `true`. If the complex
value itself is sensitive, all of its contents should be obscured.
The JSON plan output format includes a serialized, simplified version of
the configuration. One component of this config is a map of provider
configurations, which includes version constraints.
Until now, only version constraints specified in the provider config
blocks were exposed in the JSON plan output. This is a deprecated method
of specifying provider versions, and the recommended use of a
required_providers block resulted in the version constraints being
omitted.
This commit fixes this with two changes:
- When processing the provider configurations from a module, output the
fully-merged version constraints for the entire module, instead of any
constraints set in the provider configuration block itself;
- After all provider configurations are processed, iterate over the
required_providers entries to ensure that any configuration-less
providers are output to the JSON plan too.
No changes are necessary to the structure of the JSON plan output, so
this is effectively a semantic level bug fix.
The prior state recorded in the plans did not match the actual prior
state. Make the plans and state match depending on whether there was
existing state or not.
A lingering FIXME caused missing configuration from provider config
blocks in the json output of terraform plan. This fixes the regression
and adds a test. For the sake of testing, I added an optional attribute
to the show test provider, which resulted in the providers schema test
getting an update - not a bad addition, but we can always add a
test-specific provider schema as needed.
* command: refactor testBackendState to write states.State
testBackendState was using the older terraform.State format, which is no
longer sufficient for most tests since the state upgrader does not
encode provider FQNs automatically. Users will run `terraform
0.13upgrade` to update their state to include provider FQNs in
resources, but tests need to use the modern state format instead of
relying on the automatic upgrade.
* plan tests passing
* graph tests passing
* json packages test update
* command test updates
* update show test fixtures
* state show tests passing
* command/jsonstate: fix inconsistency with resource address
Resource addresses in state output were not including index for
instances created with for_each or count, while the index was appearing
in the plan output. This PR fixes that inconsistency, adds tests, and
updates the existing tests.
Fixes#24110
* add tests showing expected prior state resource addressing
* added example of show json state output with modules
* WIP: dynamic expand
* WIP: add variable and local support
* WIP: outputs
* WIP: Add referencer
* String representation, fixing tests it impacts
* Fixes TestContext2Apply_outputOrphanModule
* Fix TestContext2Apply_plannedDestroyInterpolatedCount
* Update DestroyOutputTransformer and associated types to reflect PlannableOutputs
* Remove comment about locals
* Remove module count enablement
* Removes allowing count for modules, and reverts the test,
while adding a Skip()'d test that works when you re-enable
the config
* update TargetDownstream signature to match master
* remove unnecessary method
Co-authored-by: James Bardin <j.bardin@gmail.com>
a large refactor to addrs.AbsProviderConfig, embedding the addrs.Provider instead of a Type string. I've added and updated tests, added some Legacy functions to support older state formats and shims, and added a normalization step when reading v4 (current) state files (not the added tests under states/statefile/roundtrip which work with both current and legacy-style AbsProviderConfig strings).
The remaining 'fixme' and 'todo' comments are mostly going to be addressed in a subsequent PR and involve looking up a given local provider config's FQN. This is fine for now as we are only working with default assumption.
`marshalPlannedValues` builds a map of modules to their children in
order to output the resource changes in a tree. The map was built from
the list of resource changes. However if a module had no resources
itself, and only called another module (a very normal case), that module
would not get added to the map causing none of its children to be
output in `planned_values`.
This PR adds a walk up through a given module's ancestors to ensure that
each module, even those without resources, would be added.
One of the show json command tests expected no error when presented with
an invalid configuration in a nested module. Modify the test created in
PR #21569 so that it can still verify there is no panic, but now expect
an error from init.
Martin Atkins