* terraform: use hcl.MergeBodies instead of configs.MergeBodies for provider configuration
Previously, Terraform would return an error if the user supplied provider configuration via interactive input iff the configuration provided on the command line was missing any required attributes - even if those attributes were already set in config.
That error came from configs.MergeBody, which was designed for overriding valid configuration. It expects that the first ("base") body has all required attributes. However in the case of interactive input for provider configuration, it is perfectly valid if either or both bodies are missing required attributes, as long as the final body has all required attributes. hcl.MergeBodies works very similarly to configs.MergeBodies, with a key difference being that it only checks that all required attributes are present after the two bodies are merged.
I've updated the existing test to use interactive input vars and a schema with all required attributes. This test failed before switching from configs.MergeBodies to hcl.MergeBodies.
* add a command package test that shows that we can still have providers with dynamic configuration + required + interactive input merging
This test failed when buildProviderConfig still used configs.MergeBodies instead of hcl.MergeBodies
The -var command line option comes with the disadvantage that a user must
contend both with Terraform's own parser and with the parser in whichever
shell they've decided to use, and different shells on different platforms
have different rules.
Previously we've largely just assumed that folks know the appropriate
syntax for the shell they chose, but it seems that command lines involving
spaces and other special characters arise rarely enough in other commands
that Terraform is often the first time someone needs to learn the
appropriate syntax for their shell.
We can't possibly capture all of the details of all shells in our docs,
because that's far outside of our own scope, but hopefully this new
section will go some way to give some real examples that will help folks
figure out how to write suitable escape sequences, if they choose to
set complex variable values on the command line rather than in .tfvars
as we recommend elsewhere on this page.
This PR adds decoding for the upcoming "moved" blocks in configuration. This code is gated behind an experiment called EverythingIsAPlan, but the experiment is not registered as an active experiment, so it will never run (there is a test in place which will fail if the experiment is ever registered).
This also adds a new function to the Targetable interface, AddrType, to simplifying comparing two addrs.Targetable.
There is some validation missing still: this does not (yet) descend into resources to see if the actual resource types are the same (I've put this off in part because we will eventually need the provider schema to verify aliased resources, so I suspect this validation will have to happen later on).
Previously, if any resources were found to have drifted, the JSON plan
output would include a drift entry for every resource in state. This
commit aligns the JSON plan output with the CLI UI, and only includes
those resources where the old value does not equal the new value---i.e.
drift has been detected.
Also fixes a bug where the "address" field was missing from the drift
output, and adds some test coverage.
* command: new command, terraform add, generates resource templates
terraform add ADDRESS generates a resource configuration template with all required (and optionally optional) attributes set to null. This can optionally also pre-populate nonsesitive attributes with values from an existing resource of the same type in state (sensitive vals will be populated with null and a comment indicating sensitivity)
* website: terraform add documentation
* Quoting filesystem path in scp command argument
* Adding proper shell quoting for scp commands
* Running go fmt
* Using a library for quoting shell commands
* Don't export quoteShell function
* jsonplan and jsonstate: include sensitive_values in state representations
A sensitive_values field has been added to the resource in state and planned values which is a map of all sensitive attributes with the values set to true.
It wasn't entirely clear to me if the values in state would suffice, or if we also need to consult the schema - I believe that this is sufficient for state files written since v0.15, and if that's incorrect or insufficient, I'll add in the provider schema check as well.
I also updated the documentation, and, since we've considered this before, bumped the FormatVersions for both jsonstate and jsonplan.
An unknown block represents a dynamic configuration block with an
unknown for_each value. We were not catching the case where a provider
modified this value unexpectedly, which would crash with block of type
NestingList blocks where the config value has no length for comparison.
Historically, we've used TFC's default run messages as a sort of dumping
ground for metadata about the run. We've recently decided to mostly stop
doing that, in favor of:
- Only specifying the run's source in the default message.
- Letting TFC itself handle the default messages.
Today, the remote backend explicitly sets a run message, overriding
any default that TFC might set. This commit removes that explicit message
so we can allow TFC to sort it out.
This shouldn't have any bad effect on TFE out in the wild, because it's
known how to set a default message for remote backend runs since late 2018.
Seems like we lost a newline in some of the shuffling it took to get this
into the live website, and so it's formatting oddly in the rendered
website. This restores the intended formatting of this as the start of
a bullet list, rather than as a continuation of the previous paragraph.
* clarify input variables opening sentence
* adjust variables description
* claraify providers text and add learn callout
* add description to providers page
* add desscription and clarify provider configuration
* add deprecation note to versions in proivder configs
* add hands on callout and clarify next steps in intro
* link to language collection from language docs
* give more context about configurtion language up front
* clarify output top page
* reorganize for each intro to present feature before notes
* move description before link out and remove passive voice
* fix typo
* clarify purpose of plan
* move explanation before learn link and fully spell boolean
* add a syntax heading to separate intro from details
* add learn callout to module source docs
* clean up intro to provider requirements and add link
* Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: Tu Nguyen <im2nguyen@users.noreply.github.com>
* Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: Tu Nguyen <im2nguyen@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Tu Nguyen <im2nguyen@users.noreply.github.com>
Laura Pacilio