* ignore_changes attributes must exist in schema
Add a test verifying that attempting to add a nonexistent attribute to
ignore_changes throws an error.
* ignore_changes cannot be used with Computed attrs
Return a warning if a Computed attribute is present in ignore_changes,
unless the attribute is also Optional.
ignore_changes on a non-Optional Computed attribute is a no-op, so the user
likely did not want to set this in config.
An Optional Computed attribute, however, is still subject to ignore_changes
behaviour, since it is possible to make changes in the configuration that
Terraform must ignore.
This is not currently gated by the experiment only because it is awkward
to do so in the context of evaluationStateData, which doesn't have any
concept of experiments at the moment.
If the configuration contains preconditions and/or postconditions for any
objects, we'll check them during evaluation of those objects and generate
errors if any do not pass.
The handling of post-conditions is particularly interesting here because
we intentionally evaluate them _after_ we've committed our record of the
resulting side-effects to the state/plan, with the intent that future
plans against the same object will keep failing until the problem is
addressed either by changing the object so it would pass the precondition
or changing the precondition to accept the current object. That then
avoids the need for us to proactively taint managed resources whose
postconditions fail, as we would for provisioner failures: instead, we can
leave the resolution approach up to the user to decide.
Co-authored-by: Alisdair McDiarmid <alisdair@users.noreply.github.com>
If a resource or output value has a precondition or postcondition rule
then anything the condition depends on is a dependency of the object,
because the condition rules will be evaluated as part of visiting the
relevant graph node.
This construct of a block containing a condition and an error message will
be useful for other sorts of blocks defining expectations or contracts, so
we'll give it a more generic name in anticipation of it being used in
other situations.
Now that variable evaluation checks for a nil expression the graph
transformer does not need to generate a synthetic expression for
variable defaults. This means that all default handling is now located
in one place, and we are not surprised by a configuration expression
showing up which doesn't actually exist in the configuration.
Rename nodeModuleVariable.evalModuleCallArgument to evalModuleVariable.
This method is no longer handling only the module call argument, it is
also dealing with the variable declaration defaults and validation
statements.
Add an additional tests for validation with a non-nullable variable.
In earlier Terraform versions we had an extra validation step prior to
the graph walk which tried to partially validate root module input
variable values (just checking their type constraints) and then return
error messages which specified as accurately as possible where the value
had originally come from.
We're now handling that sort of validation exclusively during the graph
walk so that we can share the main logic between both root module and
child module variable values, but previously that shared code wasn't
able to generate such specific information about where the values had
originated, because it was adapted from code originally written to only
deal with child module variables.
Here then we restore a similar level of detail as before, when we're
processing root module variables. For child module variables, we use
synthetic InputValue objects which state that the value was declared
in the configuration, thus causing us to produce a similar sort of error
message as we would've before which includes a source range covering
the argument expression in the calling module block.
Previously we had three different layers all thinking they were
responsible for substituting a default value for an unset root module
variable:
- the local backend, via logic in backend.ParseVariableValues
- the context.Plan function (and other similar functions) trying to
preprocess the input variables using
terraform.mergeDefaultInputVariableValues .
- the newer prepareFinalInputVariableValue, which aims to centralize all
of the variable preparation logic so it can be common to both root and
child module variables.
The second of these was also trying to handle type constraint checking,
which is also the responsibility of the central function and not something
we need to handle so early.
Only the last of these consistently handles both root and child module
variables, and so is the one we ought to keep. The others are now
redundant and are causing prepareFinalInputVariableValue to get a slightly
corrupted view of the caller's chosen variable values.
To rectify that, here we remove the two redundant layers altogether and
have unset root variables pass through as cty.NilVal all the way to the
central prepareFinalInputVariableValue function, which will then handle
them in a suitable way which properly respects the "nullable" setting.
This commit includes some test changes in the terraform package to make
those tests no longer rely on the mergeDefaultInputVariableValues logic
we've removed, and to instead explicitly set cty.NilVal for all unset
variables to comply with our intended contract for PlanOpts.SetVariables,
and similar. (This is so that we can more easily catch bugs in callers
where they _don't_ correctly handle input variables; it allows us to
distinguish between the caller explicitly marking a variable as unset vs.
not describing it at all, where the latter is a bug in the caller.)
Previously we had a significant discrepancy between these two situations:
we wrote the raw root module variables directly into the EvalContext and
then applied type conversions only at expression evaluation time, while
for child modules we converted and validated the values while visiting
the variable graph node and wrote only the _final_ value into the
EvalContext.
This confusion seems to have been the root cause for #29899, where
validation rules for root module variables were being applied at the wrong
point in the process, prior to type conversion.
To fix that bug and also make similar mistakes less likely in the future,
I've made the root module variable handling more like the child module
variable handling in the following ways:
- The "raw value" (exactly as given by the user) lives only in the graph
node representing the variable, which mirrors how the _expression_
for a child module variable lives in its graph node. This means that
the flow for the two is the same except that there's no expression
evaluation step for root module variables, because they arrive as
constant values from the caller.
- The set of variable values in the EvalContext is always only "final"
values, after type conversion is complete. That in turn means we no
longer need to do "just in time" conversion in
evaluationStateData.GetInputVariable, and can just return the value
exactly as stored, which is consistent with how we handle all other
references between objects.
This diff is noisier than I'd like because of how much it takes to wire
a new argument (the raw variable values) through to the plan graph builder,
but those changes are pretty mechanical and the interesting logic lives
inside the plan graph builder itself, in NodeRootVariable, and
the shared helper functions in eval_variable.go.
While here I also took the opportunity to fix a historical API wart in
EvalContext, where SetModuleCallArguments was built to take a set of
variable values all at once but our current caller always calls with only
one at a time. That is now just SetModuleCallArgument singular, to match
with the new SetRootModuleArgument to deal with root module variables.
This test seems to be a holdover from the many-moons-ago switch from one
graph for all operations to separate graphs for plan and apply. It is
effectively just a copy of a subset of the content of the Context.Validate
function and is a maintainability hazard because it tends to lag behind
updates to that function unless changes there happen to make it fail.
This test doesn't cover anything that the other validate context tests
don't exercise as an implementation detail of calling Context.Validate,
so I've just removed it with no replacement.
Our original messaging here was largely just lifted from the equivalent
message for unknown values in "count", and it didn't really include any
specific advice on how to update a configuration to make for_each valid,
instead focusing only on the workaround of using the -target planning
option.
It's tough to pack in a fully-actionable suggestion here since unknown
values in for_each keys tends to be a gnarly architectural problem rather
than a local quirk -- when data flows between modules it can sometimes be
unclear whether it'll end up being used in a context which allows unknown
values.
I did my best to summarize the advice we've been giving in community forum
though, in the hope that more people will be able to address this for
themselves without asking for help, until we're one day able to smooth
this out better with a mechanism such as "partial apply".
instances.Set is only used after all instances have been processes, so
it should therefor only handle known instances and not panic when given
an address that traverses an unexpanded module.
Revert the evaluation change from #29862.
While returning a dynamic value for all expanded resources during
validation is not optimal, trying to work around this using unknown maps
and lists is causing other undesirable behaviors during evaluation.
Previously we were treating it as a programming error to ask for the
instances of a resource inside an instance of a module that is declared
but whose declaration doesn't include the given instance key.
However, that's actually a valid situation which can arise if, for
example, the user has changed the repetition/expansion mode for an
existing module call and so now all of the resource instances addresses it
previously contained are "orphaned".
To represent that, we'll instead say that an invalid instance key of a
declared module behaves as if it contains no resource instances at all,
regardless of the configurations of any resources nested inside. This
then gives the result needed to successfully detect all of the former
resource instances as "orphaned" and plan to destroy them.
However, this then introduces a new case for
NodePlannableResourceInstanceOrphan.deleteActionReason to deal with: the
resource configuration still exists (because configuration isn't aware of
individual module/resource instances) but the module instance does not.
This actually allows us to resolve, at least partially, a previous missing
piece of explaining to the user why the resource instances are planned
for deletion in that case, finally allowing us to be explicit to the user
that it's because of the module instance being removed, which
internally we call plans.ResourceInstanceDeleteBecauseNoModule.
Co-authored-by: Alisdair McDiarmid <alisdair@users.noreply.github.com>
Resource instances removed from the configuration would previously use
the implied provider address. This is correct for default providers, but
incorrect for those from other namespaces or hosts. The fix here is to
use the stored provider config if it is present.
Earlier work to make "terraform init" interruptible made the getproviders
package context-aware in order to allow provider installation to be cancelled.
Here we make a similar change for module installation, which is now also
cancellable with SIGINT. This involves plumbing context through initwd and
getmodules. Functions which can make network requests now include a context
parameter whose cancellation cancels those requests.
Since the module installation code is shared, "terraform get" is now
also interruptible during module installation.
Allow `GetResource` to return correct types values during validation,
rather than relying on `cty.DynamicVal` as a placeholder. This allows
other dependent expressions to be more correctly evaluated.
Based on feedback during earlier alpha releases, we've decided to move
forward with the current design for the first phase of config-driven
refactoring.
Therefore here we've marked the experiment as concluded with no changes
to the most recent incarnation of the functionality. The other changes
here are all just updating test fixtures to no longer declare that they
are using experimental features.
The current behavior of module input variables is to allow users to
override a default by assigning `null`, which works contrary to the
behavior of resource attributes, and prevents explicitly accepting a
default when the input must be defined in the configuration.
Add a new variable attribute called `nullable` will allow explicitly
defining when a variable can be set to null or not. The current default
behavior is that of `nullable=true`.
Setting `nullable=false` in a variable block indicates that the variable
value can never be null. This either requires a non-null input value, or
a non-null default value. In the case of the latter, we also opt-in to
the new behavior of a `null` input value taking the default rather than
overriding it.
In a future language edition where we make `nullable=false` the default,
setting `nullable=true` will allow the legacy behavior of `null`
overriding a default value. The only future configuration in which this
would be required even if the legacy behavior were not desired is when
setting an optional+nullable value. In that case `default=null` would
also be needed and we could therefor imply `nullable=true` without
requiring it in the configuration.
Previously we would reject attempts to delete a workspace if its state
contained any resources at all, even if none of the resources had any
resource instance objects associated with it.
Nowadays there isn't any situation where the normal Terraform workflow
will leave behind resource husks, and so this isn't as problematic as it
might've been in the v0.12 era, but nonetheless what we actually care
about for this check is whether there might be any remote objects that
this state is tracking, and for that it's more precise to look for
non-nil resource instance objects, rather than whole resources.
This also includes some adjustments to our error messaging to give more
information about the problem and to use terminology more consistent with
how we currently talk about this situation in our documentation and
elsewhere in the UI.
We were also using the old State.HasResources method as part of some of
our tests. I considered preserving it to avoid changing the behavior of
those tests, but the new check seemed close enough to the intent of those
tests that it wasn't worth maintaining this method that wouldn't be used
in any main code anymore. I've therefore updated those tests to use
the new HasResourceInstanceObjects method instead.
When a test uses multiple instances of the same provider, we may need to
have separate objects to prevent overwriting of the MockProvider state.
Create a completely new MockProvider in each factory function call
rather than re-using the original provider value.
Make the state match the fixture config. The old test was not
technically invalid, but because it caused multiple instances of the
provider to be created, they were backed by the same MockProvider value
resulting in the `*Called` fields interfering.
The destroy plan should not require a configured provider (the complete
configuration is not evaluated, so they cannot be configured).
Deposed instances were being refreshed during the destroy plan, because
this instance type is only ever destroyed and shares the same
implementation between plan and walkPlanDestroy. Skip refreshing during
walkPlanDestroy.
Have the MockProvider ensure that Configure is always called before any
methods that may require a configured provider.
Ensure the MockProvider *Called fields are zeroed out when re-using the
provider instance.
Previously the planfile.Create function had accumulated probably already
too many positional arguments, and I'm intending to add another one in
a subsequent commit and so this is preparation to make the callsites more
readable (subjectively) and make it clearer how we can extend this
function's arguments to include further components in a plan file.
There's no difference in observable functionality here. This is just
passing the same set of arguments in a slightly different way.
Historically the responsibility for making sure that all of the available
providers are of suitable versions and match the appropriate checksums has
been split rather inexplicably over multiple different layers, with some
of the checks happening as late as creating a terraform.Context.
We're gradually iterating towards making that all be handled in one place,
but in this step we're just cleaning up some old remnants from the
main "terraform" package, which is now no longer responsible for any
version or checksum verification and instead just assumes it's been
provided with suitable factory functions by its caller.
We do still have a pre-check here to make sure that we at least have a
factory function for each plugin the configuration seems to depend on,
because if we don't do that up front then it ends up getting caught
instead deep inside the Terraform runtime, often inside a concurrent
graph walk and thus it's not deterministic which codepath will happen to
catch it on a particular run.
As of this commit, this actually does leave some holes in our checks: the
command package is using the dependency lock file to make sure we have
exactly the provider packages we expect (exact versions and checksums),
which is the most crucial part, but we don't yet have any spot where
we make sure that the lock file is consistent with the current
configuration, and we are no longer preserving the provider checksums as
part of a saved plan.
Both of those will come in subsequent commits. While it's unusual to have
a series of commits that briefly subtracts functionality and then adds
back in equivalent functionality later, the lock file checking is the only
part that's crucial for security reasons, with everything else mainly just
being to give better feedback when folks seem to be using Terraform
incorrectly. The other bits are therefore mostly cosmetic and okay to be
absent briefly as we work towards a better design that is clearer about
where that responsibility belongs.
kmoe