Certain backends (currently only the `remote` backend) do not support using both the default and named workspaces at the same time.
To make the migration easier for users that currently use both types of workspaces, this commit adds logic to ask the user for a new workspace name during the migration process.
We're shifting terminology from "environment" to "workspace". This takes
care of some of the main internal API surface that was using the old
terminology, though is not intended to be entirely comprehensive and is
mainly just to minimize the amount of confusion for maintainers as we
continue moving towards eliminating the old terminology.
Feedback after 0.9 was that the term "environment" was confusing due to
it colliding with several other concepts, such as OS environment
variables, a non-aligned Terraform Enterprise concept, and differing ideas
of "environment" within various organizations.
This new term "workspace" is intended to ease some of that confusion. This
term is not used anywhere else in Terraform today, and we expect it to not
be used in a manner that would be confusing within user organizations.
This begins a deprecation cycle for the "terraform env" family of commands,
instead moving to an equivalent set of "terraform workspace" commands.
There are some remaining references to the old "environment" concept in
the code, which will be cleaned up in a separate change. This change is
instead focused on text visible in the UI and wording within code comments
for the benefit of human maintainers of the code.
A couple commits got rebased together here, and it's easier to enumerate
them in a single commit.
Skip copying of states during migration if they are the same state. This
can happen when trying to reconfigure a backend's options, or if the
state was manually transferred. This can fail unexpectedly with locking
enabled.
Honor the `-input` flag for all confirmations (the new test hit some
more). Also unify where we reference the Meta.forceInitCopy and transfer
the value to the existing backendMigrateOpts.force field.
Don't erase local state during backend migration if the new and old
paths are the same. Skipping the confirmation and copy are handled in
another patch, but the local state was always erased by default, even
when it was our new state.
The `-force-copy` option will suppress confirmation for copying state
data.
Modify some tests to use the option, making sure to leave coverage of
the Input code path.
Fixes#12871
We were forgetting to remove the legacy remote state from the actual
state value when migrating. This only causes an issue when saving a plan
since the plan contains the state itself and causes an error where both
a backend + legacy state exist.
If saved plans aren't used this causes no noticable issue.
Due to buggy upgrades already existing in the wild, I also added code to
clear the remote section if it exists in a standard unchanged backend
Plans were properly encoding backend configuration but the apply was
reading it from the wrong field. :( This meant that every apply from a
plan was applying it locally with backends.
This needs to get released ASAP.
When migrating from a multi-state backend to a single-state backend, we
have to ensure that our locally configured environment is changed back
to "default", or we won't be able to access the new backend.
Add Env and SetEnv methods to command.Meta to retrieve the current
environment name inside any command.
Make sure all calls to Backend.State contain an environment name, and
make the package compile against the update backend package.
During backend initialization, especially during a migration, there is a
chance that an existing state could be overwritten.
Attempt to get a locks when writing the new state. It would be nice to
always have a lock when reading the states, but the recursive structure
of the Meta.Backend config functions makes that quite complex.
Previously when runnign a plan with no exitsing state, the plan would be
written out and then backed up on the next WriteState by another
BackupState instance. Since we now maintain a single State instance
thoughout an operation, the backup happens before any state exists so no
backup file is created.
This is OK, as the backup state the tests were checking for is from the
plan file, which already exists separate from the state.
The old behavior in this situation was to simply delete the file. Since
we now have a lock on this file we don't want to close or delete it, so
instead truncate the file at offset 0.
Fix a number of related tests
Having the state files always created for locking breaks a lot of tests.
Most can be fixed by simple checking for state within a file, but a few
still might be writing state when they shouldn't.
Sander van Harmelen