Alas, there's not a very good way to test the message we're supposed to print to
the console in this situation; we just don't appear to have a mock terminal that
the test can read from. But we can at least test that the function returns
without erroring under the exact conditions where it was erroring before.
Note that the behaviors of mc.Workspaces.Update and UpdateByID were already
starting to drift, so I consolidated their actual attribute update logic into a
helper function before they drifted much further.
Explicit version strings are actually also version constraints! And the special
comparisons we were doing to allow a range of compatible versions can also be
expressed as version constraints.
Bonus: also simplify the way we handle version check errors, by composing the
messages inline and only extracting the repetitive parts into a function.
These changes remove all of the preexisting version checking for
individual features, wiping the slate clean with an overall minimum
requirement of a future TFP-API-Version 2.5, which at the time of this
writing is expected to be TFE v202112-1.
It also actually provides that expected TFE version as an actionable
error message, rather than generically saying that it isn't supported or
using the somewhat opaque API version header.
The previous conservative guarantee that we would not make backwards
incompatible changes to the state file format until at least Terraform
1.1 can now be extended. Terraform 0.14 through 1.1 will be able to
interoperably use state files, so we can update the remote backend
version compatibility check accordingly.
This is a port of https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform/pull/29645
This changes the 'name' strategy to always align the local configured
workspace name and the remote Terraform Cloud workspace, rather than the
implicit use of the 'default' unnamed workspace being used instead.
What this essentially means is that the Cloud integration does not fully
support workspaces when configured for a single TFC workspace (as was
the case with the 'remote' backend), but *does* use the
backend.Workspaces() interface to allow for normal local behaviors like
terraform.workspace to resolve to the correct name. It does this by
always setting the local workspace name when the 'name' strategy is
used, as a part of initialization.
Part of the diff here is exporting all the previously unexported types
for mapping workspaces. The command package (and init in particular)
needs to be able to handle setting the local workspace in this
particular scenario.
Implementing this test was quite a rabbithole, as in order to satisfy
backendTestBackendStates() the workspaces returned from
backend.Workspaces() must match exactly, and the shortcut taken to test
pagination in 3cc58813f0 created an
impossible circumstance that got plastered over with the fact that
prefix filtering is done clientside, not by the API as it should be.
Tagging does not rely on clientside filtering, and expects that the
request made to the TFC API returns exactly those workspaces with the
given tags.
These changes include a better way to test pagination, wherein we
actually create over a page worth of valid workspaces in the mock client
and implement a simplified pagination behavior to match how the TFC API
actually works.
A mostly cosemetic change; The fields 'workspace' and 'prefix' don't
really describe well what they are from a caller, so change these to use
a workspaceMapping struct to convey they are for implementing workspace
mapping strategies from CLI -> TFC
The cloud package intends to implement a new integration for
Terraform Cloud/Enterprise. The purpose of this integration is to better
support TFC users; it will shed some overly generic UX and architecture,
behavior changes that are otherwise backwards incompatible in the remote
backend, and technical debt - all of which are vestiges from before
Terraform Cloud existed.
This initial commit is largely a porting of the existing 'remote'
backend, which will serve as an underlying implementation detail and not
be a typical user-level backend. This is because to re-implement the
literal backend interface is orthogonal to the purpose of this
integration, and can always be migrated away from later.
As this backend is considered an implementation detail, it will not be
registered as a declarable backend. Within these changes it is, for easy
of initial development and a clean diff.
Alisdair McDiarmid