The current behavior of module input variables is to allow users to
override a default by assigning `null`, which works contrary to the
behavior of resource attributes, and prevents explicitly accepting a
default when the input must be defined in the configuration.
Add a new variable attribute called `nullable` will allow explicitly
defining when a variable can be set to null or not. The current default
behavior is that of `nullable=true`.
Setting `nullable=false` in a variable block indicates that the variable
value can never be null. This either requires a non-null input value, or
a non-null default value. In the case of the latter, we also opt-in to
the new behavior of a `null` input value taking the default rather than
overriding it.
In a future language edition where we make `nullable=false` the default,
setting `nullable=true` will allow the legacy behavior of `null`
overriding a default value. The only future configuration in which this
would be required even if the legacy behavior were not desired is when
setting an optional+nullable value. In that case `default=null` would
also be needed and we could therefor imply `nullable=true` without
requiring it in the configuration.
A more native integration for Terraform Cloud and its CLI-driven run workflow.
Instead of a backend, users declare a special block in the top-level terraform settings
block to configure Terraform Cloud, then run terraform init.
Full documentation will follow in later commits.
When the 'select the exact version if possible' behavior was added, the
version check below it was never updated to take the newly updated
version in to account, resulting in a failed version check even as the
remote workspace updated to the correct version necessary.
E2E tests including cost estimation should indeed be added, but the
default case should be disabled; lots of cycles lost to pointless cost
estimates on null and random resources.
The delete + assign at the end of `Update` and `UpdateByID` are meant to handle
renaming a workspace — (remove old name), (insert new name).
However, `UpdateByID` was doing (remove new name), (insert new name) and leaving
the old name in place. This commit changes it to match `Update` by grabbing the
original name off the workspace object _before_ potentially renaming it.
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.
Previously, if the remote TFC/TFE instance doesn't happen to have a tool_version
record whose name exactly matches the value of `tfversion.String()`, Terraform
would be completely blocked from using the `terraform workspace new` command
(when configured with the tags strategy) — the API would give a 422 to the
whole create request.
This commit changes the StateMgr() function to do the work in two passes; first
create the workspace (which should work fine regardless), THEN update the
Terraform version and print a warning to the terminal if it fails (which 99% of
the time is a benign failure with little impact on your future CLI usage).
There are actually a few different ways to get to this message.
1. Blank state — no previous terraform applied. Start with a cloud block.
1. Implicit local — start with no backend specified. This actually goes
through the same code execution path as the first scenario.
1. Explicit local — start with a backend local block that has been
applied, then change from the local backend to a cloud block. This
will recognize the state, and is a different path through the code in
the meta backend.
This commit handles the last case. The messaging has also been tweaked.
End to end test included as well.
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.
The cloud backend (and remote before it) previously expected a TFC workspace's
`terraform-version` attribute to be either the magic string `"latest"` or an
explicit semver value. But a workspace might have a version constraint instead
(like `~> 1.1.0`), in which case the version check would blow up.
This commit checks whether `terraform-version` is a valid version constraint
before erroring out, and if so, returns success if the local version meets the
constraint.
Because it's not practical to deeply introspect the slice of version space
defined by a constraint, this check is slightly less robust than the version
comparisons below it:
- It can give a false OK on open-ended constraints like `>= 1.1.0`. Say you're
running 1.3.0, it changed the state format, and the TFE instance admin has
not yet added any 1.3.x Terraform versions; your workspace will now break.
- It will give a false not-OK when using different minor versions within a range
that we know to be compatible, e.g. remote constraint of `~> 0.15.0` and local
version of 1.1.0.
- This would be totally useless with the pre-0.14 versions of Terraform, where
patch releases could change state format... but we're not going back in time
to add this feature to them anyway.
Still, in the most common likely case (`~> x.y.z`), it'll complain at you (with
an error you can choose to override) if you're not using the same minor version,
and that seems proportionate, useful, and expected.
When a user runs `terraform refresh` we give them an error message that
tells them to run `terraform apply -refresh-state`. We could just run
that command for them, though. That is what this PR does.
James Bardin