A missing provider alias should not be implicitly added to the graph.
Run the AttachaProviderConfigTransformer immediately after adding the
providers, since the ProviderConfigTransformer should have just added
these nodes.
We have a few pesky functions that don't act like proper functions and
instead return different values on each call. These are tricky because
we need to make sure we don't trip over ourselves by re-generating these
between plan and apply.
Here we add a context test to verify correct behavior in the presence
of such functions.
There's actually a pre-existing bug which this test caught as originally
written: we re-evaluate the interpolation expressions during apply,
causing these unstable functions to produce new values, and so the
applied value ends up not exactly matching the plan. This is a bug that
needs fixing, but it's been around at least since v0.7.6 (random old
version I tried this with to see) so we'll put it on the list and address
it separately. For now, this part of the test is commented out with a
TODO attached.
We previously didn't compare values but had a TODO to start doing so,
which we then recently did. Unfortunately it turns out that we _depend_
on not comparing values here, because when we use EvalCompareDiff (a key
user of Diff.Same) we pass in a diff made from a fresh re-interpolation
of the configuration and so any non-pure function results (timestamp,
uuid) have produced different values.
As part of the 0.10 core/provider split we moved this provider, along with
all the others, out into its own repository.
In retrospect, the "terraform" provider doesn't really make sense to be
separated since it's just a thin wrapper around some core code anyway,
and so re-integrating it into core avoids the confusion that results when
Terraform Core and the terraform provider have inconsistent versions of
the backend code and dependencies.
There is no good reason to use a different version of the backend code
in the provider than in core, so this new "internal provider" mechanism
is stricter than the old one: it's not possible to use an external build
of this provider at all, and version constraints for it are rejected as
a result.
This provider is also run in-process rather than in a child process, since
again it's just a very thin wrapper around code that's already running
in Terraform core anyway, and so the process barrier between the two does
not create enough advantage to warrant the additional complexity.
Change "Downloading" to 'Initializing" to match the provider loading
dialog.
List each module being loaded.
If a regisry module is being downloaded, list the registry host, and the
version discovered.
Show the source string from the config that is being fetched, rather
than the go-getter url. The full source can be found in the logs for
debugging.
Add much more extensive logging
We can remove the AllowAny option which is no longer used, and providers
don't need to be connected to their resources at this stage, since that
will happen in the ProviderTransformer.
Now that providers in the graph can adopt resources without an explicit
provider, there's no need to add the implicit configs to the module.Tree
when loading.
Simplify the MissingProviderTransformer so that it only adds missing
providers at the root level. There's no need for the multitple providers
added at every level of the path
ParentProviderTransformer then only needs to connect providers with the
equivalent type at the root level.
The the grandChild missing test has a provider declared in a child
module which is missing in a grandchildmodule. Verify that the
grandchild gets connected to the child provider, and they all are
connected to the root providers.
Update some test outputs to match the expected behavior of only adding
missing providers at the root level.
The CloserProviderTransformer requires that the resources be connected
to their provider first, so that it cen get the correct dependencies,
and adding the ProviderTransformer changed the test output slightly.
This turned out to be a big messy commit, since the way providers are
referenced is tightly coupled throughout the code. That starts to unify
how providers are referenced, using the format output node Name method.
Add a new field to the internal resource data types called
ResolvedProvider. This is set by a new setter method SetProvider when a
resource is connected to a provider during graph creation. This allows
us to later lookup the provider instance a resource is connected to,
without requiring it to have the same module path.
The InitProvider context method now takes 2 arguments, one if the
provider type and the second is the full name of the provider. While the
provider type could still be parsed from the full name, this makes it
more explicit and, and changes to the name format won't effect this
code.
The first step in only using the required provider nodes in a graph is
to be able to specifically add them from the configuration.
The MissingProviderTransformer was previously responsible for adding
all providers. Now it is really just adding any that are missing from
the config.
The "terraform" provider was previously split out into its own repository,
but that turned out to be a mistake due to how tightly it depends on
aspects of Terraform Core.
Here we prepare to bring it back into the core repository by reorganizing
the directory layout to conform with what's expected there.
This allows the user to customize the location where Terraform stores
the files normally placed in the ".terraform" subdirectory, if e.g. the
current working directory is not writable.
This keeps CustomizeDiff from being defined on data sources, where it
would be useless. We just catch this in InternalValidate like the rest
of the CRUD functions that are not used in data sources.
Added some more detailed comments to CustomizeDiff's comments. The new
comments detail how CustomizeDiff will be called in the event of
different scenarios like creating a new resource, diffing an existing
one, diffing an existing resource that has a change that requires a new
resource, and destroy/tainted resources.
Also added similar detail to ForceNew in ResourceDiff.
This should help mitigate any confusion that may come up when using
CustomizeDiff, especially in the ForceNew scenario when the second run
happens with no state.
James Bardin