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.
Thank you. Your suggestion to use "instead of" makes the sentence even more easy to understand.
Co-authored-by: Laura Pacilio <83350965+laurapacilio@users.noreply.github.com>
We recently made a change to how provisioners upload files in order to
address an unintended remote code execution vector when using SSH, which
revealed that we had not previously documented well enough the expected
contract for how provisioners upload files to remote systems, and so some
users were depending on unintended consequences of the the bug now fixed.
We are retaining the fix on security-related grounds, but this is a good
prompt to be clearer in the docs about what exactly Terraform is doing
when asked to upload files over SSH and WinRM, so users can understand
what is supported and write their configurations accordingly.
This also includes an additional section to the v1.1 upgrade guide, since
we apparently neglected to document this intentional breaking change in
the first draft of that page.
Of course, provisioners as a whole remain a last resort, and so we're
documenting this as hopefully a helpful aid to those who have no other
option, and not meaning in any way to recommend their use for any new
use-cases.
There was an unintended regression in go-getter v1.5.9's GitGetter which
caused us to temporarily fork that particular getter into Terraform to
expedite a fix. However, upstream v1.5.10 now includes a
functionally-equivalent fix and so we can heal that fork by upgrading.
We'd also neglected to update the Module Sources docs when upgrading to
go-getter v1.5.9 originally and so we were missing documentation about the
new "depth" argument to enable shadow cloning, which I've added
retroactively here along with documenting its restriction of only
supporting named refs.
This new go-getter release also introduces a new credentials-passing
method for the Google Cloud Storage getter, and so we must incorporate
that into the Terraform-level documentation about module sources.
This paragraph is trying to say that try only works for dynamic errors and
not for errors that are _not_ based on dynamic decision-making in
expressions.
I'm not sure if this typo was always here or if it was mistakenly "corrected"
at some point, but either way the word "probably" changes the meaning
of this sentence entirely, making it seem like Terraform is hedging
the likelihood of a problem rather than checking exactly for one.
Previously we would only ever add new lock entries or update existing
ones. However, it's possible that over time a module may _cease_ using
a particular provider, at which point we ought to remove it from the lock
file so that operations won't fail when seeing that the provider cache
directory is inconsistent with the lock file.
Now the provider installer (EnsureProviderVersions) will remove any lock
file entries that relate to providers not included in the given
requirements, which therefore makes the resulting lock file properly match
the set of packages the installer wrote into the cache.
This does potentially mean that someone could inadvertently defeat the
lock by removing a provider dependency, running "terraform init", then
undoing that removal, and finally running "terraform init" again. However,
that seems relatively unlikely compared to the likelihood of removing
a provider and keeping it removed, and in the event it _did_ happen the
changes to the lock entry for that provider would be visible in the diff
of the provider lock file as usual, and so could be noticed in code
review just as for any other change to dependencies.
This makes it match some incoming links we have elsewhere, but also it
makes the heading a bit more consice because "module" isn't really adding
anything here anyway: input variables are _always_ in modules.
As explained in the changes: The 'enhanced' backend terminology, which
only truly pertains to the 'remote' backend with a single API (Terraform
Cloud/Enterprise's), has been found to be a confusing vestige which need
only be explained in the context of the 'remote' backend.
These changes reorient the explanation(s) of backends to pertain more
directly to their primary purpose, which is storage of state snapshots
(and not implementing operations).
That Terraform operations are still _implemented_ by the literal
`Backend` and `Enhanced` interfaces is inconsequential a user of
Terraform, an internal detail.
Apologies for not creating an issue first but it seemed like a simple docs change.
`apt install terraform` requires the `apt update` before terraform can be installed.
The HashiCorp APT server supports several distro releases that were not in this list,
leading to a false impression that they aren't supported.
Note, Ubuntu has a new release twice a year, so periodic maintenance
is needed here.
The `root_module.resources[].sensitive_values` key in the example output was incorrectly named and clashed with the regular `root_module.resources[].values` key.
This is documentation for the first set of refactoring-related features,
all based on the new "moved" blocks in the Terraform language.
I've named the documentation section "refactoring" because in previous
discussions with users that seems to be the term they use to describe the
underlying need.
"moved" blocks are our first language feature intended to meet that need,
although it probably won't be the last as we consider other requirements
in later releases. My intent here is that once we've published this it
should eventually end up being the first result for a web search for the
topic of Terraform refactoring.
We introduced this experiment to gather feedback, and the feedback we saw
led to us deciding to do another round of design work before we move
forward with something to meet this use-case.
In addition to being experimental, this has only been included in alpha
releases so far, and so on both counts it is not protected by the
Terraform v1.0 Compatibility Promises.
The extra feedback information for why resource instance deletion is
planned is now included in the streaming JSON UI output.
We also add an explicit case for no-op actions to switch statements in
this package to ensure exhaustiveness, for future linting.
There are a few different reasons why a resource instance tracked in the
prior state might be considered an "orphan", but previously we reported
them all identically in the planned changes.
In order to help users understand the reason for a surprising planned
delete, we'll now try to specify an additional reason for the planned
deletion, covering all of the main reasons why that could happen.
This commit only introduces the new detail to the plans.Changes result,
though it also incidentally exposes it as part of the JSON plan result
in order to keep that working without returning errors in these new
cases. We'll expose this information in the human-oriented UI output in
a subsequent commit.
Add previous address information to the `planned_change` and
`resource_drift` messages for the streaming JSON UI output of plan and
apply operations.
Here we also add a "move" action value to the `change` object of these
messages, to represent a move-only operation.
As part of this work we also simplify this code to use the plan's
DriftedResources values instead of recomputing the drift from state.
Laura Pacilio