We do not currently need to evaluate module variables in order to
import a resource.
This will likely change once we can select the import provider
automatically, and have a more dynamic method for dispatching providers
to module instances. In the meantime we can avoid the evaluation for now
and prevent a certain class of import errors.
The change was passed into the provisioner node because the normal
NodeApplyableResourceInstance overwrites the prior state with the new
state. This however doesn't matter here, because the resource destroy
node does not do this. Also, even if the updated state were to be used
for some reason with a create provisioner, it would be the correct state
to use at that point.
Fix for issue #26320 - this allows us to derive known values from
partially known maps where we can, and may prevent unnecessary
destroy/rebuild cycles during apply in some cases.
This new-ish package ended up under "helper" during the 0.12 cycle for
want of some other place to put it, but in retrospect that was an odd
choice because the "helper/" tree is otherwise a bunch of legacy code from
when the SDK lived in this repository.
Here we move it over into the "internal" directory just to distance it
from the guidance of not using "helper/" packages in new projects;
didyoumean is a package we actively use as part of error message hints.
* website: Update all Learn crosslinks
The URL structure on Learn recently changed, so it's time to update some URLs.
Co-authored-by: Tu Nguyen <im2nguyen@users.noreply.github.com>
Remove marks for object compatibility tests to allow apply
to continue. Adds a block to the test provider to use
in testing, and extends the sensitivity apply test to include a block
When a value in a nested block is marked as sensitive,
it will result in the behavior of every member of
that block being sensitive. As such, show a
specialized diff that reduces noise of (sensitive)
for many attributes that we won't show. Also update
the warning to differentiate between showing a warning
for an attribute or warning for blocks.
With the SDK moving out into its own repository, a lot of the packages
under "helper/" are no longer needed. We still need to keep around just
enough legacy SDK to support the "test" provider and some little bits and
bobs in the backends and provisioners, but a lot of this is now just dead
code.
One of the test provider tests was depending on some validation functions
only because the schema in there was originally copied from a "real"
provider. The validation rules are not actually important for the test,
so I removed them. Otherwise, this removes only dead code.
In order to properly evaluate a destroy provisioner, we cannot rely on
the usual evaluation context, because the resource has already been
removed from the state.
EvalSelfBlock evaluates an hcl.Body in the limited scope of a single
object as "self", with the added values of "count.index" and "each.key".
The test for this behavior did not work, because the old mock diff
function does not work correctly. Write a PlanResourceChange function to
return a correct plan.
Allow the evaluation of resource pending deleting only during a full
destroy. With this change we can ensure deposed instances are not
evaluated under normal circumstances, but can be references when needed.
This also allows us to remove the fixup transformer that added
connections so temporary values would evaluate in the correct order when
referencing destroy nodes.
In the majority of cases, we do not want to evaluate resources that are
pending deletion since configuration references only can refer to
resources that is intended to be managed by the configuration. An
exception to that rule is when Terraform is performing a full `destroy`
operation, and providers need to evaluate existing resources for their
configuration.
In order to handle various edge cases during a full destroy, add
FullDestroy to the synchronized changes so we can attempt to deduce if
the plan was created from `terraform destroy`.
It's possible that the plan was created by removing all resourced from
the configuration, but in that case the end result is the same. Any of
the edge cases with provider or destroy provisioner configurations would
not apply, since there would not be any configuration references to
resolve.
James Bardin