The subtle difference in keywords when creating vs. accessing locals trips
people up, even more than the "variable" vs. "var" distinction. It deserves its
own subheader on the page, plus a nice noisy callout.
I've just wasted an hour to two hours trying to find the problem to finally realize that although I declare a "locals" block, it's referred to as "local". This is pretty weird! So let's be be clear about this.
The error diagnostic shown when legacy state contains resources from
in-house providers has changed, so update references to it in the 0.13
upgrade guide.
We previously had this just stubbed out because it was a stretch goal for
the v0.13.0 release and it ultimately didn't make it in.
Here we fill out the existing stub -- with a minor change to its interface
so it can access credentials -- with a client implementation that is
compatible with the directory structure produced by the
"terraform providers mirror" subcommand, were the result to be published
on a static file server.
- Edits to registry overview
- Add index link as 'overview' (header links are semi-invisible)
- move providers/overview.html to providers/index.html
- Edits to providers overview
- fix filename of os-arch
- edits to provider publishing
Terraform's design assumes that each remote object in Terraform's care is
bound to one resource instance and one alone. If the same object is bound
to multiple instances then confusing behavior will often result, such as
two resource configurations competing to update a single object, or
objects being "left behind" when all existing Terraform deployments are
destroyed.
This assumption was previously only implied, though. This change is an
attempt to be more explicit about it, although these are additions to some
older documentation sections that have not been revised for some time and
so this is just a best effort to make this information discoverable
without getting drawn into a full-on reorganization of these sections.
While revising this there were some particular oddities that I decided to
revise while I was there, but I'll leave a fuller revision of this older
content for a later commit when we have more time to review it in greater
detail.
* Make sidebar nav in language docs more intuitive
* Minor display fixes for registry docs
* Explain providers in the registry in the providers index
* Revise a bunch of language docs around provider reqs
This is mostly an effort to smooth out some of the explanations, make sure
things are presented in a helpful order, make sure terminology lines up, draw
connections between related concepts, make default behavior more apparent, and
the like. It shouldn't include very much new information, but there might be one
or two things that came out of a conversation somewhere.
Co-authored-by: Judith Malnick <judith@hashicorp.com>
As part of documenting the new module for_each capabilities we added a
section noting that shared modules using the legacy pattern of declaring
their own provider configurations would not be compatible with them.
However, that also applies to the new module depends_on and several folks
participating in the beta pointed out that the documentation wasn't
discussing that at all.
In order to generalize the advice, I've moved the old content we had
(since v0.11) recommending against provider configurations in shared
modules out into its own section, now being more explicit that it is
a legacy pattern and not recommended, and then folded the content about
for_each and count, now also including depends_on, into that expanded
section.
As is often the case, that had some knock-on effects on the content on
the rest of this page, so there's some general editing and reorganization
here. In particular, I moved the "Multiple Instances of a Module" section
much further up the page because it's content relevant to users of
shared modules, while the later content on this page is more aimed at
authors of shared modules, including the new section about the legacy
pattern.
Part of the upgrade process happens in the first "terraform apply" after
adding explicit source addresses in the configuration. Previously we just
left that implied under the assumption that everyone would run
"terraform apply" shortly after anyway, but there is a specific tricky
situation where the first change after upgrading is to remove a resource
from the configuration, leaving Terraform unable to complete the upgrade.
Because of that, we'll now explicitly direct users to run
"terraform apply" after upgrading. Along with that, there's a reminder to
make sure that "terraform plan" indicates no changes before upgrading, so
that completing the upgrade doesn't involve also applying changes to
remote objects.
* website: Terraform Registry Provider Publishing
* website: (Registry) remove OS/arch recommendation
Until we have a canonical list to point to
Co-authored-by: Paul Tyng <ptyng@hashicorp.com>
Co-authored-by: Paul Tyng <ptyng@hashicorp.com>
* command/init: return an error with invalid -backend-config files
The -backend-config flag expects a set of key-value pairs or a file
containing key-value pairs. If the file instead contains a full backend
configuration block, it was silently ignored. This commit adds a check
for blocks in the file and returns an error if they are encountered.
Fixes#24845
* emphasize backend configuration file in docs
* Azure backend: support snapshots/versioning
Co-authored-by: Reda Ahdjoudj <reda.ahdjoudj@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Patrick F. Marques <patrickfmarques@gmail.com>
* Azure backend: Versioning -> Snapshot
Co-authored-by: Reda Ahdjoudj <reda.ahdjoudj@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Patrick F. Marques <patrickfmarques@gmail.com>
Although this command is removed in Terraform 0.13, our documentation is
for all versions of Terraform that remain in common use and keeping this
documented will be helpful for folks who are still using Terraform 0.11
and planning their upgrades to Terraform 0.12.
Both of the upgrade commands now include notes that they are only
available in their specific major version, along with a link to the
relevant upgrade guide for other background information about the upgrade,
in case the user finds the command documentation first. (The command docs
are, I think, a little more discoverable than the upgrade guides.)
Nick Fagerlund