I promised myself that next time I jumped in this file I'd fix this up.
Now we don't have to manually index the file with comments, we can just
add descriptive names to the test cases!
Previous this would return the following sort of error:
expected type 'string', got unconvertible type '[]interface {}'
This is the raw error returned by the underlying mapstructure library.
This is not a helpful error message for anyone who doesn't know Go's
type system, and it exposes Terraform's internals to the UI.
Instead we'll catch these cases before we try to use mapstructure and
return a more straightforward message.
By checking the type before the IsComputed exception this also avoids
a crash caused when the assigned value is a computed list. Otherwise
the list of interpolations is allowed through here and then crashes later
during Diff when the value is not a primitive as expected.
A common issue with new resource implementations is not considering parts
of a complex structure that's used inside a set, which causes quirky
behavior.
The schema helper has enough information to provide a default reasonable
implementation of a set function that includes all non-computed attributes
in a deterministic way. Here we implement such a function and use it
when no explicit hashing function is provided.
In order to achieve this we encapsulate the construction of the zero
value for a schema in a new method schema.ZeroValue, which allows us to
put the fallback logic to the new default function in a single spot.
It is no longer valid to use &Set{F: schema.Set} and all uses of that
construct should be replaced with schema.ZeroValue().(*Set) .
In `helper/schema` we already makes a distinction between `Default`
which is always applied and `InputDefault` which is displayed to the
user for an empty field.
But for variables we just have `Default` which is treated like
`InputDefault`. This changes it to _not_ prompt the user for a value
when the variable declaration includes a default.
Treating this as a UX bugfix and the "don't prompt for variables w/
defaults set" behavior as the originally expected behavior we were
failing to honor.
Added an already-passing test to verify and cover the `helper/schema`
behavior.
Perhaps down the road we can add a `input_default` attribute to
variables to allow similar behavior to `helper/schema` in variables, but
for now just sticking with the fix.
Fixes#2592
This is the initial pure "all tests passing without a diff" stage. The
plan is to change the internal representation of StringList to include a
suffix delimiter, which will allow us to recognize empty and
single-element lists.
I couldn't see a simple path get this working for Maps, Sets,
and Lists, so lets land it as a primitive-only schema feature.
I think validation on primitives comprises 80% of the use cases anyways.
Guarantees that the `interface{}` arg to ValidateFunc is the proper
type, allowing implementations to be simpler.
Finish the docstring on `ValidateFunc` to call this out.
/cc @mitchellh
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
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
/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
Paul Hinze