- 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.)
We previously covered everything about using providers on a single page,
but that was getting unwieldy already and we now have a lot more to
discuss with v0.13 introducing a new source address syntax and some other
concepts.
Here we split the provider-related content into two parts: "Provider
Requirements" covers how to find and declare dependencies on providers,
and then "Provider Configuration" (formerly just "Providers") then focuses
primarily on how to write zero or more provider configurations for a
particular provider.
Because "Provider Requirements" is now presented before "Provider
Configuration" in the navigation, I've also moved some of the introductory
content about providers in general onto the "Requirements" page. The
first paragraph of that content is duplicated onto the "Configuration"
page for discoverability, but we now link to the requirements page to get
the full story.
The "Configuration Language" section was becoming rather unweildy, both
by having a lot of pages and by some of the pages being quite large in
themselves.
This is a first step towards breaking things up a little more, starting
with two changes:
- The "Configuration Language" navigation is now split into two
sub-headings "Configuration Blocks" and "Syntax".
- Some of the information about sub-blocks of the "terraform" block are
now given their own pages, because their content is quite complex
in itself.
- "Version Constraints" is now a page in its own right, rather than this
content being duplicated in slightly different forms across multiple
contexts that make use of user-specified version constraints.
We previously had the module registry protocol documented only as an
undefined subset of the full API of the official registry implementation.
However, the vast majority of endpoints documented in the official API
docs are not needed for a headless third-party module registry that only
intends to make modules available to Terraform CLI.
To make this clearer to potential third-party implementors, and also for
consistency with how the provider registry protocol is now documented,
here we create a new page to describe the subset required for all
registries, and then explain in the docs for the offical API that
potential third-party implementors should refer to the new page instead.
The longer page describing the full API of the official implementations
remains for those who wish to write clients for that API, because it is
part of the API surface area for Terraform Cloud and Terraform Enterprise.
I also took this opportunity to address the fact that module addresses
don't really contain "provider names" at all, but rather than the fourth
field in the address is _conventionally_ an official provider name but
can really be any string that serves to differentiate multiple
implementations of the same abstraction. The new docs therefore refer to
this field as "system" rather than "provider".
Currently the example config for the Consul backend uses a live Consul demo cluster at `demo.consul.io`. This results in TF state with sensitive information and all being stored on a public site when users just copy and paste the config. This PR changes it so that the config address isn't the public demo cluster.
This new command is intended to make it easy to create or update a mirror
directory containing suitable providers for the current configuration,
producing a layout that is appropriate both for a filesystem mirror or,
if copied into the document root of an HTTP server, a network mirror.
This initial version is not customizable aside from being able to select
multiple platforms to install packages for.
Future iterations of this could include commands to turn the JSON index
generation on and off, or to instruct it to produce the unpacked directory
layout instead of the packed directory layout as it currently does. Both
of those options would make the generated directory unsuitable to be
a network mirror, but it would still work as a filesystem mirror.
In the long run this will hopefully form part of a replacement workflow to
terraform-bundle as a way to put copies of providers somewhere so we don't
need to re-download them every time, but some other changes will be needed
outside of just this command before that'd be true, such as adding support
for network and/or filesystem mirrors in Terraform Enterprise.
When helping folks in the community forum, I commonly see questions around
more complex patterns in transforming deep data structures into different
shapes to work with for_each. We have examples of these patterns in the
docs for the functions that they rely on, but they were not previously
very discoverable in the main configuration language documentation
sections.
Here I've moved the "Using Expressions in for_each" subsection on the
Resources page above some of the other sub-sections to hopefully make it
easier to see, and written out in more detail the two specific patterns
that answer a significant number of for_each-related user questions in
the hope that readers will be more likely to realize that the links are
relevant to what their goals.
I also added some more elaboration about the behavior of converting from
list to set in the "Using Sets" subsection, because this feature is often
a user's first encounter with the set data type and I've inferred from
some of the questions I've answered that a number of Terraform users don't
have prior experience with set data types in other languages to draw
assumptions from.
Finally, I added some similar links to the for_each patterns within the
for expression documentation itself, to try to make those examples more
visible to those who might be discovering the documentation in a different
sequence, e.g. by following a deep link shared in an answer to a question
in the community forum.
The "apply" documentation contained a simple typo, while the "plan"
documentation contained outdated information about using
"terraform plan PLANFILE" to view a plan. The latter is now a separate
command entirely, since Terraform 0.12: "terraform show PLANFILE".
This is a baby-step towards an intended future where all Terraform actions
which have side-effects in either remote objects or the Terraform state
can go through the plan+apply workflow.
This initial change is focused only on allowing plan+apply for changes to
root module output values, so that these can be written into a new state
snapshot (for consumption by terraform_remote_state elsewhere) without
having to go outside of the primary workflow by running
"terraform refresh".
This is also better than "terraform refresh" because it gives an
opportunity to review the proposed changes before applying them, as we're
accustomed to with resource changes.
The downside here is that Terraform Core was not designed to produce
accurate changesets for root module outputs. Although we added a place for
it in the plan model in Terraform 0.12, Terraform Core currently produces
inaccurate changesets there which don't properly track the prior values.
We're planning to rework Terraform Core's evaluation approach in a
forthcoming release so it would itself be able to distinguish between the
prior state and the planned new state to produce an accurate changeset,
but this commit introduces a temporary stop-gap solution of implementing
the logic up in the local backend code, where we can freeze a snapshot of
the prior state before we take any other actions and then use that to
produce an accurate output changeset to decide whether the plan has
externally-visible side-effects and render any changes to output values.
This temporary approach should be replaced by a more appropriately-placed
solution in Terraform Core in a release, which should then allow further
behaviors in similar vein, such as user-visible drift detection for
resource instances.
as with this version of this doc users receives a warning like this if them use quotes with parameters of 'on_failure' setting:
"
on_failure = "continue"
In this context, keywords are expected literally rather than in quotes.
Terraform 0.11 and earlier required quotes, but quoted keywords are now
deprecated and will be removed in a future version of Terraform. Remove the
quotes surrounding this keyword to silence this warning.
"
same with:
when = "destroy"
All of the feedback from the experiment described enhancements that can
potentially be added later without breaking changes, so this change simply
removes the experiment gate from the feature as originally implemented
with no changes to its functionality.
Further enhancements may follow in later releases, but the goal of this
change is just to ship the feature exactly as it was under the experiment.
Most of the changes here are cleaning up the experiment opt-ins from our
test cases. The most important parts are in configs/experiments.go and in
experiments/experiment.go .
* website: Edit text of new TF_IGNORE env var docs
Fixing one broken link, and tidying the sentences a bit.
* typo
Co-authored-by: Pam Selle <pam@hashicorp.com>
This example doesn't really show how these values should be used. The
default of retry_on_exit_code is now already when most people want, so
this line is not needed in most cases.
I think the docs describe the new options just fine, so lets leave this
out...
This is an initial draft of documentation for this new feature of the
CLI configuration. This is mainly intended as a placeholder for now,
because there are other documentation updates pending for the new provider
namespacing and installation scheme and we'll likely want to revise these
docs to better complement the broader documentation once it's written.
The providers command has been refactored to use the modern provider types and
ProviderRequirements() functions. This resulted in a breaking change to
the output: it no longer outputs the providers by module and no longer
prints `(inherited)` or `(from state)` to show why a provider is
included. We decided that at this time it was best to stick with the
existing functions and make this change, but if we get feedback from the
community we will revisit.
Additional tests to exercise providers in modules and providers from
state have been included.
A proposed pull request to the AWS provider would change the import behavior of
`aws_security_group`. This preemptive change will help keep the docs accurate if
that gets merged.
Implement a new provider_meta block in the terraform block of modules, allowing provider-keyed metadata to be communicated from HCL to provider binaries.
Bundled in this change for minimal protocol version bumping is the addition of markdown support for attribute descriptions and the ability to indicate when an attribute is deprecated, so this information can be shown in the schema dump.
Co-authored-by: Paul Tyng <paul@paultyng.net>
Previously the templatefile function would permit any arbitrary string as
a variable name, but due to the HCL template syntax it would be impossible
to refer to one that isn't a valid HCL identifier without causing an
HCL syntax error.
The HCL syntax errors are correct, but don't really point to the root
cause of the problem. Instead, we'll pre-verify that the variable names
are valid before we even try to render the template, and given a
specialized error message that refers to the vars argument expression as
the problematic part, which will hopefully make the resolution path
clearer for a user encountering this situation.
The syntax error still remains for situations where all of the variable
names are correct but e.g. the user made a typo referring to one, which
makes sense because in that case the problem _is_ inside the template.
* add TencentCloud COS backend for remote state
* add vendor of dependence
* fixed error not handle and remove default value for prefix argument
* get appid from TF_COS_APPID environment variables
* add setdifference and setsubtract functions and docs
* remove setdifference as it is not implemented correct in underlying lib
* Update setintersection.html.md
* Update setproduct.html.md
* Update setunion.html.md
This guide now lives at:
- https://learn.hashicorp.com/terraform#getting-started
...and terraform.io has been redirecting to there for quite a while. This commit
removes the extra copy so that the text of the two versions doesn't drift, and
updates existing links to point to the new location.
This document now lives at:
- https://learn.hashicorp.com/terraform/development/running-terraform-in-automation
...and terraform.io has been redirecting to there for quite a while. This commit
removes the extra copy so that the text of the two versions doesn't drift, and
updates existing links to point to the new location.
The existing "type" argument allows specifying a type constraint that
allows for some basic validation, but often there are more constraints on
a variable value than just its type.
This new feature (requiring an experiment opt-in for now, while we refine
it) allows specifying arbitrary validation rules for any variable which
can then cause custom error messages to be returned when a caller provides
an inappropriate value.
variable "example" {
validation {
condition = var.example != "nope"
error_message = "Example value must not be \"nope\"."
}
}
The core parts of this are designed to do as little new work as possible
when no validations are specified, and thus the main new checking codepath
here can therefore only run when the experiment is enabled in order to
permit having validations.
These are intended to make it easier to work with arbitrary data
structures whose shape might not be known statically, such as the result
of jsondecode(...) or yamldecode(...) of data from a separate system.
For example, in an object value which has attributes that may or may not
be set we can concisely provide a fallback value to use when the attribute
isn't set:
try(local.example.foo, "fallback-foo")
Using a "try to evaluate" model rather than explicit testing fits better
with the usual programming model of the Terraform language where values
are normally automatically converted to the necessary type where possible:
the given expression is subject to all of the same normal type conversions,
which avoids inadvertently creating a more restrictive evaluation model
as might happen if this were handled using checks like a hypothetical
isobject(...) function, etc.
In earlier versions of Terraform the result of terraform state show was
in the pre-0.12 "flatmap" structure that was unable to reflect nested
data structures. That was fixed in Terraform 0.12, but as a consequence
this statement about the output being machine-parseable (which was
debateable even in older versions) is incorrect.
Fortunately, we now have "terraform show -json" to get output that is
intentionally machine-parseable, so we'll recommend to use that instead
here. The JSON output of that command is a superset of what's produced by
"terraform state show", so should be usable to meet any use-case that
might previously have been met by parsing the "terraform state show"
output.
Right now, the only environment variable available is the same
environment variable that will be picked up by the GCP provider. Users
would like to be able to store state in separate projects or accounts or
otherwise authenticate to the provider with a service account that
doesn't have access to the state. This seems like a reasonable enough
practice to me, and the solution seems straightforward--offer an
environment variable that doesn't mean anything to the provider to
configure the backend credentials. I've added GOOGLE_BACKEND_CREDENTIALS
to manage just the backend credentials, and documented it appropriately.
It's a common source of errors to try to produce JSON or YAML syntax
using string concatenation via our template language but to miss some
details like correct string escaping, quoting, required commas, etc.
The jsonencode and yamlencode functions are a better way to generate JSON
and YAML, but it's not immediately obvious that both of these functions
are available for use in external templates (via templatefile) too.
Given that questions related to this come up a lot in our community forum
and elsewhere, it seems worth having a documentation section to show the
pattern of having a template that consists only of a single function call.
When warnings appear in isolation (not accompanied by an error) it's
reasonable to want to defer resolving them for a while because they are
not actually blocking immediate work.
However, our warning messages tend to be long by default in order to
include all of the necessary context to understand the implications of
the warning, and that can make them overwhelming when combined with other
output.
As a compromise, this adds a new CLI option -compact-warnings which is
supported for all the main operation commands and which uses a more
compact format to print out warnings as long as they aren't also
accompanied by errors.
The default remains unchanged except that the threshold for consolidating
warning messages is reduced to one so that we'll now only show one of
each distinct warning summary.
Full warning messages are always shown if there's at least one error
included in the diagnostic set too, because in that case the warning
message could contain additional context to help understand the error.
There are a few situations that we've seen arise quite commonly for folks
upgrading from Terraform 0.11 to 0.12. These particular problems are not
things that Terraform 0.12 can fix automatically during upgrading, but
we can at least give some better feedback to users that they ought to be
addressed _before_ upgrading.
The provider address problem is already detected and flagged by the
"terraform 0.11checklist" command that folks should run as part of their
upgrade process, but the module address problem is not something we
noticed was lacking validation in 0.11 and so the checklist tool doesn't
cover it. Due to the lack of coverage in the checklist tool, this commit
also includes an additional section in the upgrade guide that mentions
the problem and gives instructions on how to address it.
I've seen folks ask about how to express this in resource address syntax
a number of times now, so adding this example here to illustrate how it
looks when there are multiple levels of module to traverse through.
This is redundant with other information further up the page, but having
it as an entirely separate example gives an opportunity to include more
introductory text to explain what the example is showing.
There are some differences between the Terraform CLI and Terraform Cloud ideas of workspaces.
This documentation aims to explain those differences and show different patterns for configuring the remote backend and the implications of different approaches.
As mentioned in #17871 the current example can hide the fact that the module
path plays an important role. The example's explanation is expanded.
Moreover, the verb "attach" is replaced with "map" to make the vocabulary
consistent with the wording in the documentation of the terraform state.
Kristin Laemmert