Reference: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform/issues/30373
This change forward ports the `legacy_type_system` boolean fields in the `ApplyResourceChange.Response` and `PlanResourceChange.Response` messages that existed in protocol version 5, so that existing terraform-plugin-sdk/v2 providers can be muxed with protocol version 6 providers (e.g. terraform-plugin-framework) while also taking advantage of the newer protocol features. This functionality should not be used by any providers or SDKs except those built with terraform-plugin-sdk.
Updated via:
```shell
cp docs/plugin-protocol/tfplugin6.1.proto docs/plugin-protocol/tfplugin6.2.proto
# Copy legacy_type_system fields from tfplugin5.2.proto into ApplyResourceChange.Response and PlanResourceChange
rm internal/tfplugin6/tfplugin6.proto
ln -s ../../docs/plugin-protocol/tfplugin6.2.proto internal/tfplugin6/tfplugin6.proto
go run tools/protobuf-compile/protobuf-compile.go `pwd`
# Updates to internal/plugin6/grpc_provider.go
```
Previously we were just returning a string representation of the file mode,
which spends more characters on the irrelevant permission bits that it
does on the directory entry type, and is presented in a Unix-centric
format that likely won't be familiar to the user of a Windows system.
Instead, we'll recognize a few specific directory entry types that seem
worth mentioning by name, and then use a generic message for the rest.
The original motivation here was actually to deal with the fact that our
tests for this function were previously not portable due to the error
message leaking system-specific permission detail that are not relevant
to the test. Rather than just directly addressing that portability
problem, I took the opportunity to improve the error messages at the same
time.
However, because of that initial focus there are only actually tests here
for the directory case. A test that tries to test any of these other file
modes would not be portable and in some cases would require superuser
access, so we'll just leave those cases untested for the moment since they
weren't tested before anyway, and so we've not _lost_ any test coverage
here.
Terraform uses "implied" move statements to represent the situation where
it automatically handles a switch from count to no-count on a resource.
Because that situation requires targeting only a specific resource
instance inside a specific module instance, implied move statements are
always presented as if they had been declared in the root module and then
traversed through the exact module instance path to reach the target
resource.
However, that means they can potentially cross a module package boundary,
if the changed resource belongs to an external module. Normally we
prohibit that to avoid the root module depending on implementation details
of the called module, but Terraform generates these implied statements
based only on information in the called module and so there's no need to
apply that same restriction to implied move statements, which will always
have source and destination addresses belonging to the same module
instance.
This change therefore fixes a misbehavior where Terraform would reject
an attempt to switch from no-count to count in a called module, where
previously the author of the calling configuration had no recourse to fix
it because the change has actually happened upstream.
Previously the "terraform state ..." subcommands were the only way to
perform various manipulations of the state, but in recent Terraform
versions we have replaced these with better options.
Since these pages seem to already have pretty good search engine
optimization for the use-cases they are describing, we'll prioritize
mentioning the new approaches and only mention the now-deprecated or
de-emphasized features as a secondary approach.
Specifically:
- Describe the -replace=... planning option in preference to
"terraform taint", and present taint as primarily a mechanism for
Terraform to use itself, as opposed to something end-users should
typically use directly.
- Introduce the config-based refactoring features before describing
"terraform state mv".
The older features here are still applicable in some situations and are
required for those still using older versions of Terraform, so we will
retain the information about them for now while aiming to be clearer in
each case about which is our preferred, modern approach.
Laura Pacilio