There no reason to retry around the execution of remote scripts. We've
already established a connection, so the only that could happen here is
to continually retry uploading or executing a script that can't succeed.
This also simplifies the streaming output from the command, which
doesn't need such explicit synchronization. Closing the output pipes is
sufficient to stop the copyOutput functions, and they don't close around
any values that are accessed again after the command executes.
It turns out that `d.GetOk` also returns `false` when the user _did_ actually supply a value for it in the config, but the value itself needs to be evaluated before it can be used.
So instead of passing a `ResourceData` we now pass a `ResourceConfig`
which makes much more sense for doing the validation anyway.
The tests did pass, but that was because they only tested part of the changes. By using the `schema.TestResourceDataRaw` function the schema and config are better tested and so they pointed out a problem with the schema of the Chef provisioner.
The `Elem` fields did not have a `*schema.Schema` but a `schema.Schema` and in an `Elem` schema only the `Type` field may (and must) be set. Any other fields like `Optional` are not allowed here.
Next to fixing that problem I also did a little refactoring and cleaning up. Mainly making the `ProvisionerS` private (`provisioner`) and removing the deprecated fields.
1. Migrate `chef` provisioner to `schema.Provisioner`:
* `chef.Provisioner` structure was renamed to `ProvisionerS`and now it's decoded from `schema.ResourceData` instead of `terraform.ResourceConfig` using simple copy-paste-based solution;
* Added simple schema without any validation yet.
2. Support `ValidateFunc` validate function : implemented in `file` and `chef` provisioners.
- Include new option in file provisioner. Now content or source can be
provided. Content will create a temp file and copy there the contents.
- Later that file will be used as source.
- Include test to check that changes are working correctly.
This is needed as preperation for adding WinRM support. There is still
one error in the tests which needs another look, but other than that it
seems like were now ready to start working on the WinRM part…
James Bardin