This brings over the work done by @apparentlymart and @radeksimko in
PR #3124, and converts it into a data source for the AWS provider:
This commit adds a helper to construct IAM policy documents using
familiar Terraform concepts. It makes Terraform-style interpolations
easier and resolves the syntax conflict between Terraform interpolations
and IAM policy variables by changing the latter to use &{...} for its
interpolations.
Its use is completely optional and users are free to go on using literal
heredocs, file interpolations or whatever else; this just adds another
option that fits more naturally into a Terraform config.
This an effort to address hashicorp/terraform#516.
Adding the Sensitive attribute to the resource schema, opening up the
ability for resource maintainers to mark some fields as sensitive.
Sensitive fields are hidden in the output, and, possibly in the future,
could be encrypted.
Closing off my other AWS availability zone branch, I'm adding tests for
the existing aws_availability_zones data source.
This closeshashicorp/terraform#4848.
...as this will hopefully clue people in that this function will indeed
work to manipulate ipv6 networks.
Not that I completely spaced on that for quite some time, or anything
like that.
Nope, not me. Not at all.
This data source allows one to look up the most recent AMI for a specific
set of parameters, much like aws ec2 describe-images in the AWS CLI.
Basically a refresh of hashicorp/terraform#4396, in data source form.
During accpeptance tests of some of the first data sources (see
hashicorp/terraform#6881 and hashicorp/terraform#6911),
"unknown resource type" errors have been coming up. Traced it down to
the ResourceCountTransformer, which transforms destroy nodes to a
graphNodeExpandedResourceDestroy node. This node's EvalTree() was still
indiscriminately using EvalApply for all resource types, versus
EvalReadDataApply. This accounts for both cases via EvalIf.
This commit adds the newly required OS_EXT_GW environment variable to
the devstack acceptance environment build suite. It also fixes some
space formatting in a test.
Previously the plan phase would produce a data diff only if no state was
already present. However, this is a faulty approach because a state will
already be present in the case where the data resource depends on a
managed resource that existed in state during refresh but became
computed during plan, due to a "forces new resource" diff.
Now we will produce a data diff regardless of the presence of the state
when the configuration is computed during the plan phase.
This fixes#6824.
This means it’s shown correctly in a plan and takes into account any
actions that are dependant on the tainted resource and, vice verse, any
actions that the tainted resource depends on.
So this changes the behaviour from saying this resource is tainted so
just forget about it and make sure it gets deleted in the background,
to saying I want that resource to be recreated (taking into account the
existing resource and it’s place in the graph).
James Nugent