AccTests like TestAccComputeInstance_basic_deprecated_network were
failing early on "invalid config" when we are explictly testing behavior
that we know generates warnings.
- Users
- Groups
- Roles
- Inline policies for the above three
- Instance profiles
- Managed policies
- Access keys
This is most of the data types provided by IAM. There are a few things
missing, but the functionality here is probably sufficient for 95% of
the cases. Makes a dent in #28.
Do directory expansion on filenames.
Add basic acceptance tests. Code coverage is 72.5%.
Uncovered code is uninteresting and/or impossible error cases.
Note that this required adding a knob to
helper/resource.TestStep to allow transient
resources.
This is needed as preperation for adding WinRM support. There is still
one error in the tests which needs another look, but other than that it
seems like were now ready to start working on the WinRM part…
I forgot to add `Computed: true` when I made the "key_name" field
optional in #1751.
This made the behavior:
* Name generated in Create and set as ID
* Follow up plan (without refresh) was nice and empty
* During refresh, name gets cleared out on Read, causing a bad diff on
subsequent plans
We can automatically catch bugs like this if we add yet another
verification step to our resource acceptance tests -> a post
Refresh+Plan that we verify is empty.
I left the non-refresh Plan verification in, because it's important that
_both_ of these are empty after an Apply.
Adds an "alias" field to the provider which allows creating multiple instances
of a provider under different names. This provides support for configurations
such as multiple AWS providers for different regions. In each resource, the
provider can be set with the "provider" field.
(thanks to Cisco Cloud for their support)
It turned out the tests didn’t work as expected due to some missing
config in the `newMockLineServer` and a defer located in the wrong
location. All is good again now…
Each acceptance test step plays a Refresh, Plan, Apply for a given
config. This adds a follow up Plan and fails the test if it does not
come back empty. This will catch issues with perpetual, unresolvable
diffs that crop up here and there.
This is going to cause a lot of our existing acceptance tests to fail -
too many to roll into a single PR. I think the best plan is to land this
in master and then fix the failures (each of which should be catching a
legitimate provider bug) one by one until we get the provider suites
back to green.
If a given resource does not define an `Update` function, then all of
its attributes must be specified as `ForceNew`, lest Applys fail with
"doesn't support update" like #1367.
This is something we can detect automatically, so this adds a check for
it when we validate provider implementations.
Add `-target=resource` flag to core operations, allowing users to
target specific resources in their infrastructure. When `-target` is
used, the operation will only apply to that resource and its
dependencies.
The calculated dependencies are different depending on whether we're
running a normal operation or a `terraform destroy`.
Generally, "dependencies" refers to ancestors: resources falling
_before_ the target in the graph, because their changes are required to
accurately act on the target.
For destroys, "dependencies" are descendents: those resources which fall
_after_ the target. These resources depend on our target, which is going
to be destroyed, so they should also be destroyed.
We were previously only recording the schema version on refresh. This
caused the state to be incorrectly written after a `terraform apply`
causing subsequent commands to run the state through an unnecessary
migration.
Providers get a per-resource SchemaVersion integer that they can bump
when a resource's schema changes format. Each InstanceState with an
older recorded SchemaVersion than the cureent one is yielded to a
`MigrateSchema` function to be transformed such that it can be addressed
by the current version of the resource's Schema.
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
Paul Hinze