Since this is still at an early phase and likely to change significantly
in future iterations, rather than attempting to guess on a suitable final
location for documenting the testing feature I've instead taken the
unusual approach of adding a new page that is explicitly about the
experiment. My expectation is that once we conclude the experiment we'll
replace this new page with a stub that just explains that there was once
an experiment and then links to whatever final feature unfolded from the
research.
The URL for this page is hard-coded into the warning message in the
"terraform test" command, so as we continue to evolve this feature in
future releases we'll need to update the callout note on the page about
which Terraform CLI version it's currently talking about, so users of
older versions can clearly see when they'd need to upgrade in order to
participate in a later incarnation of the experiment.
This is just a prototype to gather some feedback in our ongoing research
on integration testing of Terraform modules. The hope is that by having a
command integrated into Terraform itself it'll be easier for interested
module authors to give it a try, and also easier for us to iterate quickly
based on feedback without having to coordinate across multiple codebases.
Everything about this is subject to change even in future patch releases.
Since it's a CLI command rather than a configuration language feature it's
not using the language experiments mechanism, but generates a warning
similar to the one language experiments generate in order to be clear that
backward compatibility is not guaranteed.
As part of ongoing research into Terraform testing we'd like to use an
experimental feature to validate our current understanding that expressing
tests as part of the Terraform language, as opposed to in some other
language run alongside, is a good and viable way to write practical
module integration tests.
This initial experimental incarnation of that idea is implemented as a
provider, just because that's an easier extension point for research
purposes than a first-class language feature would be. Whether this would
ultimately emerge as a provider similar to this or as custom language
constructs will be a matter for future research, if this first
experiment confirms that tests written in the Terraform language are the
best direction to take.
The previous incarnation of this experiment was an externally-developed
provider apparentlymart/testing, listed on the Terraform Registry. That
helped with showing that there are some useful tests that we can write
in the Terraform language, but integrating such a provider into Terraform
will allow us to make use of it in the also-experimental "terraform test"
command, which will follow in subsequent commits, to see how this might
fit into a development workflow.
* Add support for plugin protocol v6
This PR turns on support for plugin protocol v6. A provider can
advertise itself as supporting protocol version 6 and terraform will
use the correct client.
Todo:
The "unmanaged" providers functionality does not support protocol
version, so at the moment terraform will continue to assume that
"unmanaged" providers are on protocol v5. This will require some
upstream work on go-plugin (I believe).
I would like to convert the builtin providers to use protocol v6 in a
future PR; however it is not necessary until we remove protocol v6.
* add e2e test for using both plugin protocol versions
- copied grpcwrap and made a version that returns protocol v6 provider
- copied the test provider, provider-simple, and made a version that's
using protocol v6 with the above fun
- added an e2etest
This code does not appear to have any effect. The operation request has
its PlanOutBackend field populated directly in the Meta.Operation
method, by calling m.backendForState.ForPlan().
I tested a trivial null-resource config with a Consul backend, and the
saved plans with and without this code present were identical.
When using the -lock-timeout option with the remote backend configured
in local operations mode, Terraform would fail to retry acquiring the
lock. This was caused by the lock error message having a missing Info
field, which the state manager requires to be present in order to
attempt retries.
Remove the README that had old user-facing information, replacing
it with a doc.go that describes the package and points to the
plugin SDK for external consumers.
This commit extracts the remaining UI logic from the local backend,
and removes access to the direct CLI output. This is replaced with an
instance of a `views.Operation` interface, which codifies the current
requirements for the local backend to interact with the user.
The exception to this at present is interactivity: approving a plan
still depends on the `UIIn` field for the backend. This is out of scope
for this commit and can be revisited separately, at which time the
`UIOut` field can also be removed.
Changes in support of this:
- Some instances of direct error output have been replaced with
diagnostics, most notably in the emergency state backup handler. This
requires reformatting the error messages to allow the diagnostic
renderer to line-wrap them;
- The "in-automation" logic has moved out of the backend and into the
view implementation;
- The plan, apply, refresh, and import commands instantiate a view and
set it on the `backend.Operation` struct, as these are the only code
paths which call the `local.Operation()` method that requires it;
- The show command requires the plan rendering code which is now in the
views package, so there is a stub implementation of a `views.Show`
interface there.
Other refactoring work in support of migrating these commands to the
common views code structure will come in follow-up PRs, at which point
we will be able to remove the UI instances from the unit tests for those
commands.
* Remove deprecation on undeclared variable
Remove deprecation and add docs specific to the behavior around
undeclared variable values
* Limit full warnings to 2 instances, then summary
This way, the third warning is a summary, rather than the fourth
warning being the summary
Sensitive values in provisioner configuration would cause errors in the
validate phase. We need to unmark these value before serializing the
config value for the provisioner plugin.
* providers.Interface: huge renamification
This commit renames a handful of functions in the providers.Interface to
match changes made in protocol v6. The following commit implements this
change across the rest of the codebase; I put this in a separate commit
for ease of reviewing and will squash these together when merging.
One noteworthy detail: protocol v6 removes the config from the
ValidateProviderConfigResponse, since it's never been used. I chose to
leave that in place in the interface until we deprecate support for
protocol v5 entirely.
Note that none of these changes impact current providers using protocol
v5; the protocol is unchanged. Only the translation layer between the
proto and terraform have changed.
* command/format: check for sensitive NestedTypes
Eventually, the diff formatter will need to be updated to properly
handle NestedTypes, but for now we can let the existing function deal
with them as regular cty.Object-type attributes.
To avoid printing sensitive nested attributes, we will treat any
attribute with at least one sensitive nested attribute as an entirely
sensitive attribute.
* bugfix for Object ImpliedType()
ImpliedType() was returning too early when the given object had optional
attributes, therefore skipping the incredibly important step of
accounting for the nesting mode when returning said type.
Add a test for a diagnostic with no steps to make sure it still gets
associated with the resource in the config. Follow up to #27710 using
@alisdair's suggested testing.
Alisdair McDiarmid