Commit Graph

4 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Martin Atkins e67c359b2d provider/test: allow assigning a label to each instance
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.
2017-05-11 10:52:51 -07:00
Mitchell Hashimoto c6d0333dc0
flatmap: mark computed list as a computed value in Expand
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.
2017-02-23 10:03:59 -08:00
Paul Hinze 4a1b36ac0d
core: rerun resource validation before plan and apply
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
2016-07-01 13:12:57 -05:00
Paul Hinze c3e27b3e0a provider/test: a test provider
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.
2016-03-21 08:59:54 -05:00