One quirky aspect of our import feature is that we allow the importer to
produce additional resources alongside the one that was imported, such as
to create separate rules for each rule of an imported security group.
Providers need to be able to set the types of these other resources since
they may not match the "main" resource type. They do this by calling
ResourceData.SetType, which in turn sets InstanceState.Ephemeral.Type.
In our shims here we therefore need to copy that out into our new TypeName
field so that the new core import code can see it and create the right
type in the state.
Testing this required a minor change to the test harness to allow the
ImportStateCheck function to see the resource type.
Booleans in the legacy form were stored as strings, and can appear as
the incorrect type in the new type system.
Unset fields in sets also might show up erroneously in diffs, with
equal old and new values.
It's alive! CustomizeDiff logic now has been inserted into the diff
process. The test_resource_with_custom_diff resource provides some basic
testing and a reference implementation.
There should now be plenty of test coverage for this feature via the
tests added for ResourceDiff, and the basic test added to the
schemaMap.Diff test, and the test resource, but more can be added to
test any specific case that comes up otherwise.
When testing the behavior of multiple provider instances (either aliases
or child module overrides) it's convenient to be able to label the
individual instances to determine which one is actually being used for
the purpose of making test assertions.
Fixes#12183
The fix is in flatmap for this but the entire issue is a bit more
complex. Given a schema with a computed set, if you reference it like
this:
lookup(attr[0], "field")
And "attr" contains a computed set within it, it would panic even though
"field" is available. There were a couple avenues I could've taken to
fix this:
1.) Any complex value containing any unknown value at any point is
entirely unknown.
2.) Only the specific part of the complex value is unknown.
I took route 2 so that the above works without any computed (since
"name" is not computed but something else is). This may actually have an
effect on other parts of Terraform configs, however those similar
configs would've simply crashed previously so it shouldn't break any
pre-existing configs.
In #7170 we found two scenarios where the type checking done during the
`context.Validate()` graph walk was circumvented, and the subsequent
assumption of type safety in the provider's `Diff()` implementation
caused panics.
Both scenarios have to do with interpolations that reference Computed
values. The sentinel we use to indicate that a value is Computed does
not carry any type information with it yet.
That means that an incorrect reference to a list or a map in a string
attribute can "sneak through" validation only to crop up...
1. ...during Plan for Data Source References
2. ...during Apply for Resource references
In order to address this, we:
* add high-level tests for each of these two scenarios in `provider/test`
* add context-level tests for the same two scenarios in `terraform`
(these tests proved _really_ tricky to write!)
* place an `EvalValidateResource` just before `EvalDiff` and `EvalApply` to
catch these errors
* add some plumbing to `Plan()` and `Apply()` to return validation
errors, which were previously only generated during `Validate()`
* wrap unit-tests around `EvalValidateResource`
* add an `IgnoreWarnings` option to `EvalValidateResource` to prevent
active warnings from halting execution on the second-pass validation
Eventually, we might be able to attach type information to Computed
values, which would allow for these errors to be caught earlier. For
now, this solution keeps us safe from panics and raises the proper
errors to the user.
Fixes#7170
Here we also introduce a `test` provider meant as an aid to exposing
via automated tests issues involving interactions between
`helper/schema` and Terraform core.
This has been helpful so far in diagnosing `ignore_changes` problems,
and I imagine it will be helpful in other contexts as well.
We'll have to be careful to prevent the `test` provider from becoming a
dumping ground for poorly specified tests that have a clear home
elsewhere. But for bug exposure I think it's useful to have.
Martin Atkins