We've been using the models from the "moduledeps" package to represent our
provider dependencies everywhere since the idea of provider dependencies
was introduced in Terraform 0.10, but that model is not convenient to use
for any use-case other than the "terraform providers" command that needs
individual-module-level detail.
To make things easier for new codepaths working with the new-style
provider installer, here we introduce a new model type
getproviders.Requirements which is based on the type the new installer was
already taking as its input. We have new methods in the states, configs,
and earlyconfig packages to produce values of this type, and a helper
to merge Requirements together so we can combine config-derived and
state-derived requirements together during installation.
The advantage of this new model over the moduledeps one is that all of
recursive module walking is done up front and we produce a simple, flat
structure that is more convenient for the main use-cases of selecting
providers for installation and then finding providers in the local cache
to use them for other operations.
This new model is _not_ suitable for implementing "terraform providers"
because it does not retain module-specific requirement details. Therefore
we will likely keep using moduledeps for "terraform providers" for now,
and then possibly at a later time consider specializing the moduledeps
logic for only what "terraform providers" needs, because it seems to be
the only use-case that needs to retain that level of detail.
When we're being asked to destroy everything, we ideally want to end up
with a totally empty state. Normally we will conservatively keep around
the "husks" of resources (what's left after all of the instances have been
destroyed) unless they are configured without count or for_each, but in
this special case we'll prune those out.
The implication of this is that in "weird" expression contexts that happen
before the next "terraform plan", such as evaluation in
"terraform console" or expressions in data resources and provider blocks
that get evaluated during the refresh walk, we will see these results
as unknown rather than as empty lists of objects. We accept that weirdness
for now because in a future release we are likely to remove "refresh" as
a separate walk anyway, doing all of that work during the plan walk where
we can ensure that these values are properly re-populated before trying
to use them.
Previously our handling of create_before_destroy -- and of deposed objects
in particular -- was rather "implicit" and spread over various different
subsystems. We'd quietly just destroy every deposed object during a
destroy operation, without any user-visible plan to do so.
Here we make things more explicit by tracking each deposed object
individually by its pseudorandomly-allocated key. There are two different
mechanisms at play here, building on the same concepts:
- During a replace operation with create_before_destroy, we *pre-allocate*
a DeposedKey to use for the prior object in the "apply" node and then
pass that exact id to the destroy node, ensuring that we only destroy
the single object we planned to destroy. In the happy path here the
user never actually sees the allocated deposed key because we use it and
then immediately destroy it within the same operation. However, that
destroy may fail, which brings us to the second mechanism:
- If any deposed objects are already present in state during _plan_, we
insert a destroy change for them into the plan so that it's explicit to
the user that we are going to destroy these additional objects, and then
create an individual graph node for each one in DiffTransformer.
The main motivation here is to be more careful in how we handle these
destroys so that from a user's standpoint we never destroy something
without the user knowing about it ahead of time.
However, this new organization also hopefully makes the code itself a
little easier to follow because the connection between the create and
destroy steps of a Replace is reprseented in a single place (in
DiffTransformer) and deposed instances each have their own explicit graph
node rather than being secretly handled as part of the main instance-level
graph node.
Due to how often the state and plan types are referenced throughout
Terraform, there isn't a great way to switch them out gradually. As a
consequence, this huge commit gets us from the old world to a _compilable_
new world, but still has a large number of known test failures due to
key functionality being stubbed out.
The stubs here are for anything that interacts with providers, since we
now need to do the follow-up work to similarly replace the old
terraform.ResourceProvider interface with its replacement in the new
"providers" package. That work, along with work to fix the remaining
failing tests, will follow in subsequent commits.
The aim here was to replace all references to terraform.State and its
downstream types with states.State, terraform.Plan with plans.Plan,
state.State with statemgr.State, and switch to the new implementations of
the state and plan file formats. However, due to the number of times those
types are used, this also ended up affecting numerous other parts of core
such as terraform.Hook, the backend.Backend interface, and most of the CLI
commands.
Just as with 5861dbf3fc49b19587a31816eb06f511ab861bb4 before, I apologize
in advance to the person who inevitably just found this huge commit while
spelunking through the commit history.
Since schemas are required to interpret provider, resource, and
provisioner attributes in configs, states, and plans, these helpers intend
to make it easier to gather up the the necessary provider types in order
to preload all of the needed schemas before beginning further processing.
Config.ProviderTypes returns directly the list of provider types, since
at this level further detail is not useful: we've not yet run the
provider allocation algorithm, and so the only thing we can reliably
extract here is provider types themselves.
State.ProviderAddrs and Plan.ProviderAddrs each return a list of
absolute provider addresses, which can then be turned into a list of
provider types using the new helper providers.AddressedTypesAbs.
Since we're already using configs.Config throughout core, this also
updates the terraform.LoadSchemas helper to use Config.ProviderTypes
to find the necessary providers, rather than implementing its own
discovery logic. states.State is not yet plumbed in, so we cannot yet
use State.ProviderAddrs to deal with the state but there's a TODO comment
to remind us to update that in a later commit when we swap out
terraform.State for states.State.
A later commit will probably refactor this further so that we can easily
obtain schema for the providers needed to interpret a plan too, but that
is deferred here because further work is required to make core work with
the new plan types first. At that point, terraform.LoadSchemas may become
providers.LoadSchemas with a different interface that just accepts lists
of provider and provisioner names that have been gathered by the caller
using these new helpers.
This is a wrapper around State that is able to perform higher-level
manipulations (at the granularity of the entire state) in a
concurrency-safe manner, using the lower-level APIs exposed by State and
all of the types it contains.
The granularity of a SyncState operation roughly matches the granularity
off a state-related EvalNode in the "terraform" package, performing a
sequence of more primitive operations while guaranteeing atomicity of the
entire change.
As a compromise for convenience of usage, it's still possible to access
the individual state data objects via this API, but they are always copied
before returning to ensure that two distinct callers cannot have data
races. Callers should access the most granular object possible for their
operation.
Our previous state models in the "terraform" package had a few limitations
that are addressed here:
- Instance attributes were stored as map[string]string with dot-separated
keys representing traversals through a data structure. Now that we have
a full type system, it's preferable to store it as a real data
structure.
- The existing state structures skipped over the "resource" concept and
went straight to resource instance, requiring heuristics to decide
whether a particular resource should appear as a single object or as
a list of objects when used in configuration expressions.
- Related to the previous point, the state models also used incorrect
terminology where "ResourceState" was really a resource instance state
and "InstanceState" was really the state of a particular remote object
associated with an instance. These new models use the correct names for
each of these, introducing the idea of a "ResourceInstanceObject" as
the local record of a remote object associated with an instance.
This is a first pass at fleshing out a new model for state. Undoubtedly
there will be further iterations of this as we work on integrating these
new models into the "terraform" package.
These new model types no longer serve double-duty as a description of the
JSON state file format, since they are for in-memory use only. A
subsequent commit will introduce a separate package that deals with
persisting state to files and reloading those files later.
Martin Atkins