opentofu/terraform/transform_diff.go

184 lines
6.1 KiB
Go
Raw Normal View History

package terraform
import (
"fmt"
"log"
2016-09-21 16:30:41 -05:00
"github.com/hashicorp/terraform/dag"
"github.com/hashicorp/terraform/plans"
"github.com/hashicorp/terraform/states"
core: Be more explicit in how we handle create_before_destroy Previously our handling of create_before_destroy -- and of deposed objects in particular -- was rather "implicit" and spread over various different subsystems. We'd quietly just destroy every deposed object during a destroy operation, without any user-visible plan to do so. Here we make things more explicit by tracking each deposed object individually by its pseudorandomly-allocated key. There are two different mechanisms at play here, building on the same concepts: - During a replace operation with create_before_destroy, we *pre-allocate* a DeposedKey to use for the prior object in the "apply" node and then pass that exact id to the destroy node, ensuring that we only destroy the single object we planned to destroy. In the happy path here the user never actually sees the allocated deposed key because we use it and then immediately destroy it within the same operation. However, that destroy may fail, which brings us to the second mechanism: - If any deposed objects are already present in state during _plan_, we insert a destroy change for them into the plan so that it's explicit to the user that we are going to destroy these additional objects, and then create an individual graph node for each one in DiffTransformer. The main motivation here is to be more careful in how we handle these destroys so that from a user's standpoint we never destroy something without the user knowing about it ahead of time. However, this new organization also hopefully makes the code itself a little easier to follow because the connection between the create and destroy steps of a Replace is reprseented in a single place (in DiffTransformer) and deposed instances each have their own explicit graph node rather than being secretly handled as part of the main instance-level graph node.
2018-09-20 14:30:52 -05:00
"github.com/hashicorp/terraform/tfdiags"
)
// DiffTransformer is a GraphTransformer that adds graph nodes representing
// each of the resource changes described in the given Changes object.
type DiffTransformer struct {
terraform: ugly huge change to weave in new HCL2-oriented types Due to how deeply the configuration types go into Terraform Core, there isn't a great way to switch out to HCL2 gradually. As a consequence, this huge commit gets us from the old state to a _compilable_ new state, but does not yet attempt to fix any tests and has a number of known missing parts and bugs. We will continue to iterate on this in forthcoming commits, heading back towards passing tests and making Terraform fully-functional again. The three main goals here are: - Use the configuration models from the "configs" package instead of the older models in the "config" package, which is now deprecated and preserved only to help us write our migration tool. - Do expression inspection and evaluation using the functionality of the new "lang" package, instead of the Interpolator type and related functionality in the main "terraform" package. - Represent addresses of various objects using types in the addrs package, rather than hand-constructed strings. This is not critical to support the above, but was a big help during the implementation of these other points since it made it much more explicit what kind of address is expected in each context. Since our new packages are built to accommodate some future planned features that are not yet implemented (e.g. the "for_each" argument on resources, "count"/"for_each" on modules), and since there's still a fair amount of functionality still using old-style APIs, there is a moderate amount of shimming here to connect new assumptions with old, hopefully in a way that makes it easier to find and eliminate these shims later. I apologize in advance to the person who inevitably just found this huge commit while spelunking through the commit history.
2018-04-30 12:33:53 -05:00
Concrete ConcreteResourceInstanceNodeFunc
core: Be more explicit in how we handle create_before_destroy Previously our handling of create_before_destroy -- and of deposed objects in particular -- was rather "implicit" and spread over various different subsystems. We'd quietly just destroy every deposed object during a destroy operation, without any user-visible plan to do so. Here we make things more explicit by tracking each deposed object individually by its pseudorandomly-allocated key. There are two different mechanisms at play here, building on the same concepts: - During a replace operation with create_before_destroy, we *pre-allocate* a DeposedKey to use for the prior object in the "apply" node and then pass that exact id to the destroy node, ensuring that we only destroy the single object we planned to destroy. In the happy path here the user never actually sees the allocated deposed key because we use it and then immediately destroy it within the same operation. However, that destroy may fail, which brings us to the second mechanism: - If any deposed objects are already present in state during _plan_, we insert a destroy change for them into the plan so that it's explicit to the user that we are going to destroy these additional objects, and then create an individual graph node for each one in DiffTransformer. The main motivation here is to be more careful in how we handle these destroys so that from a user's standpoint we never destroy something without the user knowing about it ahead of time. However, this new organization also hopefully makes the code itself a little easier to follow because the connection between the create and destroy steps of a Replace is reprseented in a single place (in DiffTransformer) and deposed instances each have their own explicit graph node rather than being secretly handled as part of the main instance-level graph node.
2018-09-20 14:30:52 -05:00
State *states.State
Changes *plans.Changes
}
func (t *DiffTransformer) Transform(g *Graph) error {
if t.Changes == nil || len(t.Changes.Resources) == 0 {
// Nothing to do!
return nil
}
// Go through all the modules in the diff.
log.Printf("[TRACE] DiffTransformer starting")
core: Be more explicit in how we handle create_before_destroy Previously our handling of create_before_destroy -- and of deposed objects in particular -- was rather "implicit" and spread over various different subsystems. We'd quietly just destroy every deposed object during a destroy operation, without any user-visible plan to do so. Here we make things more explicit by tracking each deposed object individually by its pseudorandomly-allocated key. There are two different mechanisms at play here, building on the same concepts: - During a replace operation with create_before_destroy, we *pre-allocate* a DeposedKey to use for the prior object in the "apply" node and then pass that exact id to the destroy node, ensuring that we only destroy the single object we planned to destroy. In the happy path here the user never actually sees the allocated deposed key because we use it and then immediately destroy it within the same operation. However, that destroy may fail, which brings us to the second mechanism: - If any deposed objects are already present in state during _plan_, we insert a destroy change for them into the plan so that it's explicit to the user that we are going to destroy these additional objects, and then create an individual graph node for each one in DiffTransformer. The main motivation here is to be more careful in how we handle these destroys so that from a user's standpoint we never destroy something without the user knowing about it ahead of time. However, this new organization also hopefully makes the code itself a little easier to follow because the connection between the create and destroy steps of a Replace is reprseented in a single place (in DiffTransformer) and deposed instances each have their own explicit graph node rather than being secretly handled as part of the main instance-level graph node.
2018-09-20 14:30:52 -05:00
var diags tfdiags.Diagnostics
state := t.State
changes := t.Changes
// DiffTransformer creates resource _instance_ nodes. If there are any
// whole-resource nodes already in the graph, we must ensure that they
// get evaluated before any of the corresponding instances by creating
// dependency edges, so we'll do some prep work here to ensure we'll only
// create connections to nodes that existed before we started here.
resourceNodes := map[string][]GraphNodeConfigResource{}
for _, node := range g.Vertices() {
rn, ok := node.(GraphNodeConfigResource)
if !ok {
continue
}
// We ignore any instances that _also_ implement
// GraphNodeResourceInstance, since in the unlikely event that they
// do exist we'd probably end up creating cycles by connecting them.
if _, ok := node.(GraphNodeResourceInstance); ok {
continue
}
addr := rn.ResourceAddr().String()
resourceNodes[addr] = append(resourceNodes[addr], rn)
}
core: Be more explicit in how we handle create_before_destroy Previously our handling of create_before_destroy -- and of deposed objects in particular -- was rather "implicit" and spread over various different subsystems. We'd quietly just destroy every deposed object during a destroy operation, without any user-visible plan to do so. Here we make things more explicit by tracking each deposed object individually by its pseudorandomly-allocated key. There are two different mechanisms at play here, building on the same concepts: - During a replace operation with create_before_destroy, we *pre-allocate* a DeposedKey to use for the prior object in the "apply" node and then pass that exact id to the destroy node, ensuring that we only destroy the single object we planned to destroy. In the happy path here the user never actually sees the allocated deposed key because we use it and then immediately destroy it within the same operation. However, that destroy may fail, which brings us to the second mechanism: - If any deposed objects are already present in state during _plan_, we insert a destroy change for them into the plan so that it's explicit to the user that we are going to destroy these additional objects, and then create an individual graph node for each one in DiffTransformer. The main motivation here is to be more careful in how we handle these destroys so that from a user's standpoint we never destroy something without the user knowing about it ahead of time. However, this new organization also hopefully makes the code itself a little easier to follow because the connection between the create and destroy steps of a Replace is reprseented in a single place (in DiffTransformer) and deposed instances each have their own explicit graph node rather than being secretly handled as part of the main instance-level graph node.
2018-09-20 14:30:52 -05:00
for _, rc := range changes.Resources {
addr := rc.Addr
dk := rc.DeposedKey
core: Be more explicit in how we handle create_before_destroy Previously our handling of create_before_destroy -- and of deposed objects in particular -- was rather "implicit" and spread over various different subsystems. We'd quietly just destroy every deposed object during a destroy operation, without any user-visible plan to do so. Here we make things more explicit by tracking each deposed object individually by its pseudorandomly-allocated key. There are two different mechanisms at play here, building on the same concepts: - During a replace operation with create_before_destroy, we *pre-allocate* a DeposedKey to use for the prior object in the "apply" node and then pass that exact id to the destroy node, ensuring that we only destroy the single object we planned to destroy. In the happy path here the user never actually sees the allocated deposed key because we use it and then immediately destroy it within the same operation. However, that destroy may fail, which brings us to the second mechanism: - If any deposed objects are already present in state during _plan_, we insert a destroy change for them into the plan so that it's explicit to the user that we are going to destroy these additional objects, and then create an individual graph node for each one in DiffTransformer. The main motivation here is to be more careful in how we handle these destroys so that from a user's standpoint we never destroy something without the user knowing about it ahead of time. However, this new organization also hopefully makes the code itself a little easier to follow because the connection between the create and destroy steps of a Replace is reprseented in a single place (in DiffTransformer) and deposed instances each have their own explicit graph node rather than being secretly handled as part of the main instance-level graph node.
2018-09-20 14:30:52 -05:00
log.Printf("[TRACE] DiffTransformer: found %s change for %s %s", rc.Action, addr, dk)
// Depending on the action we'll need some different combinations of
// nodes, because destroying uses a special node type separate from
// other actions.
core: Be more explicit in how we handle create_before_destroy Previously our handling of create_before_destroy -- and of deposed objects in particular -- was rather "implicit" and spread over various different subsystems. We'd quietly just destroy every deposed object during a destroy operation, without any user-visible plan to do so. Here we make things more explicit by tracking each deposed object individually by its pseudorandomly-allocated key. There are two different mechanisms at play here, building on the same concepts: - During a replace operation with create_before_destroy, we *pre-allocate* a DeposedKey to use for the prior object in the "apply" node and then pass that exact id to the destroy node, ensuring that we only destroy the single object we planned to destroy. In the happy path here the user never actually sees the allocated deposed key because we use it and then immediately destroy it within the same operation. However, that destroy may fail, which brings us to the second mechanism: - If any deposed objects are already present in state during _plan_, we insert a destroy change for them into the plan so that it's explicit to the user that we are going to destroy these additional objects, and then create an individual graph node for each one in DiffTransformer. The main motivation here is to be more careful in how we handle these destroys so that from a user's standpoint we never destroy something without the user knowing about it ahead of time. However, this new organization also hopefully makes the code itself a little easier to follow because the connection between the create and destroy steps of a Replace is reprseented in a single place (in DiffTransformer) and deposed instances each have their own explicit graph node rather than being secretly handled as part of the main instance-level graph node.
2018-09-20 14:30:52 -05:00
var update, delete, createBeforeDestroy bool
switch rc.Action {
case plans.NoOp:
continue
case plans.Delete:
delete = true
case plans.DeleteThenCreate, plans.CreateThenDelete:
update = true
delete = true
createBeforeDestroy = (rc.Action == plans.CreateThenDelete)
default:
update = true
}
core: Be more explicit in how we handle create_before_destroy Previously our handling of create_before_destroy -- and of deposed objects in particular -- was rather "implicit" and spread over various different subsystems. We'd quietly just destroy every deposed object during a destroy operation, without any user-visible plan to do so. Here we make things more explicit by tracking each deposed object individually by its pseudorandomly-allocated key. There are two different mechanisms at play here, building on the same concepts: - During a replace operation with create_before_destroy, we *pre-allocate* a DeposedKey to use for the prior object in the "apply" node and then pass that exact id to the destroy node, ensuring that we only destroy the single object we planned to destroy. In the happy path here the user never actually sees the allocated deposed key because we use it and then immediately destroy it within the same operation. However, that destroy may fail, which brings us to the second mechanism: - If any deposed objects are already present in state during _plan_, we insert a destroy change for them into the plan so that it's explicit to the user that we are going to destroy these additional objects, and then create an individual graph node for each one in DiffTransformer. The main motivation here is to be more careful in how we handle these destroys so that from a user's standpoint we never destroy something without the user knowing about it ahead of time. However, this new organization also hopefully makes the code itself a little easier to follow because the connection between the create and destroy steps of a Replace is reprseented in a single place (in DiffTransformer) and deposed instances each have their own explicit graph node rather than being secretly handled as part of the main instance-level graph node.
2018-09-20 14:30:52 -05:00
if dk != states.NotDeposed && update {
diags = diags.Append(tfdiags.Sourceless(
tfdiags.Error,
"Invalid planned change for deposed object",
fmt.Sprintf("The plan contains a non-delete change for %s deposed object %s. The only valid action for a deposed object is to destroy it, so this is a bug in Terraform.", addr, dk),
))
continue
}
// If we're going to do a create_before_destroy Replace operation then
// we need to allocate a DeposedKey to use to retain the
// not-yet-destroyed prior object, so that the delete node can destroy
// _that_ rather than the newly-created node, which will be current
// by the time the delete node is visited.
if update && delete && createBeforeDestroy {
// In this case, variable dk will be the _pre-assigned_ DeposedKey
// that must be used if the update graph node deposes the current
// instance, which will then align with the same key we pass
// into the destroy node to ensure we destroy exactly the deposed
// object we expect.
if state != nil {
ris := state.ResourceInstance(addr)
if ris == nil {
// Should never happen, since we don't plan to replace an
// instance that doesn't exist yet.
diags = diags.Append(tfdiags.Sourceless(
tfdiags.Error,
"Invalid planned change",
fmt.Sprintf("The plan contains a replace change for %s, which doesn't exist yet. This is a bug in Terraform.", addr),
))
continue
}
// Allocating a deposed key separately from using it can be racy
// in general, but we assume here that nothing except the apply
// node we instantiate below will actually make new deposed objects
// in practice, and so the set of already-used keys will not change
// between now and then.
dk = ris.FindUnusedDeposedKey()
} else {
// If we have no state at all yet then we can use _any_
// DeposedKey.
dk = states.NewDeposedKey()
}
}
if update {
// All actions except destroying the node type chosen by t.Concrete
abstract := NewNodeAbstractResourceInstance(addr)
var node dag.Vertex = abstract
if f := t.Concrete; f != nil {
node = f(abstract)
}
core: Be more explicit in how we handle create_before_destroy Previously our handling of create_before_destroy -- and of deposed objects in particular -- was rather "implicit" and spread over various different subsystems. We'd quietly just destroy every deposed object during a destroy operation, without any user-visible plan to do so. Here we make things more explicit by tracking each deposed object individually by its pseudorandomly-allocated key. There are two different mechanisms at play here, building on the same concepts: - During a replace operation with create_before_destroy, we *pre-allocate* a DeposedKey to use for the prior object in the "apply" node and then pass that exact id to the destroy node, ensuring that we only destroy the single object we planned to destroy. In the happy path here the user never actually sees the allocated deposed key because we use it and then immediately destroy it within the same operation. However, that destroy may fail, which brings us to the second mechanism: - If any deposed objects are already present in state during _plan_, we insert a destroy change for them into the plan so that it's explicit to the user that we are going to destroy these additional objects, and then create an individual graph node for each one in DiffTransformer. The main motivation here is to be more careful in how we handle these destroys so that from a user's standpoint we never destroy something without the user knowing about it ahead of time. However, this new organization also hopefully makes the code itself a little easier to follow because the connection between the create and destroy steps of a Replace is reprseented in a single place (in DiffTransformer) and deposed instances each have their own explicit graph node rather than being secretly handled as part of the main instance-level graph node.
2018-09-20 14:30:52 -05:00
if createBeforeDestroy {
// We'll attach our pre-allocated DeposedKey to the node if
// it supports that. NodeApplyableResourceInstance is the
// specific concrete node type we are looking for here really,
// since that's the only node type that might depose objects.
if dn, ok := node.(GraphNodeDeposer); ok {
dn.SetPreallocatedDeposedKey(dk)
}
log.Printf("[TRACE] DiffTransformer: %s will be represented by %s, deposing prior object to %s", addr, dag.VertexName(node), dk)
} else {
log.Printf("[TRACE] DiffTransformer: %s will be represented by %s", addr, dag.VertexName(node))
}
g.Add(node)
rsrcAddr := addr.ContainingResource().String()
for _, rsrcNode := range resourceNodes[rsrcAddr] {
g.Connect(dag.BasicEdge(node, rsrcNode))
}
}
2016-09-21 16:30:41 -05:00
if delete {
core: Be more explicit in how we handle create_before_destroy Previously our handling of create_before_destroy -- and of deposed objects in particular -- was rather "implicit" and spread over various different subsystems. We'd quietly just destroy every deposed object during a destroy operation, without any user-visible plan to do so. Here we make things more explicit by tracking each deposed object individually by its pseudorandomly-allocated key. There are two different mechanisms at play here, building on the same concepts: - During a replace operation with create_before_destroy, we *pre-allocate* a DeposedKey to use for the prior object in the "apply" node and then pass that exact id to the destroy node, ensuring that we only destroy the single object we planned to destroy. In the happy path here the user never actually sees the allocated deposed key because we use it and then immediately destroy it within the same operation. However, that destroy may fail, which brings us to the second mechanism: - If any deposed objects are already present in state during _plan_, we insert a destroy change for them into the plan so that it's explicit to the user that we are going to destroy these additional objects, and then create an individual graph node for each one in DiffTransformer. The main motivation here is to be more careful in how we handle these destroys so that from a user's standpoint we never destroy something without the user knowing about it ahead of time. However, this new organization also hopefully makes the code itself a little easier to follow because the connection between the create and destroy steps of a Replace is reprseented in a single place (in DiffTransformer) and deposed instances each have their own explicit graph node rather than being secretly handled as part of the main instance-level graph node.
2018-09-20 14:30:52 -05:00
// Destroying always uses a destroy-specific node type, though
// which one depends on whether we're destroying a current object
// or a deposed object.
var node GraphNodeResourceInstance
abstract := NewNodeAbstractResourceInstance(addr)
core: Be more explicit in how we handle create_before_destroy Previously our handling of create_before_destroy -- and of deposed objects in particular -- was rather "implicit" and spread over various different subsystems. We'd quietly just destroy every deposed object during a destroy operation, without any user-visible plan to do so. Here we make things more explicit by tracking each deposed object individually by its pseudorandomly-allocated key. There are two different mechanisms at play here, building on the same concepts: - During a replace operation with create_before_destroy, we *pre-allocate* a DeposedKey to use for the prior object in the "apply" node and then pass that exact id to the destroy node, ensuring that we only destroy the single object we planned to destroy. In the happy path here the user never actually sees the allocated deposed key because we use it and then immediately destroy it within the same operation. However, that destroy may fail, which brings us to the second mechanism: - If any deposed objects are already present in state during _plan_, we insert a destroy change for them into the plan so that it's explicit to the user that we are going to destroy these additional objects, and then create an individual graph node for each one in DiffTransformer. The main motivation here is to be more careful in how we handle these destroys so that from a user's standpoint we never destroy something without the user knowing about it ahead of time. However, this new organization also hopefully makes the code itself a little easier to follow because the connection between the create and destroy steps of a Replace is reprseented in a single place (in DiffTransformer) and deposed instances each have their own explicit graph node rather than being secretly handled as part of the main instance-level graph node.
2018-09-20 14:30:52 -05:00
if dk == states.NotDeposed {
node = &NodeDestroyResourceInstance{
NodeAbstractResourceInstance: abstract,
DeposedKey: dk,
}
} else {
node = &NodeDestroyDeposedResourceInstanceObject{
NodeAbstractResourceInstance: abstract,
DeposedKey: dk,
}
}
if dk == states.NotDeposed {
log.Printf("[TRACE] DiffTransformer: %s will be represented for destruction by %s", addr, dag.VertexName(node))
} else {
log.Printf("[TRACE] DiffTransformer: %s deposed object %s will be represented for destruction by %s", addr, dk, dag.VertexName(node))
}
g.Add(node)
}
}
log.Printf("[TRACE] DiffTransformer complete")
core: Be more explicit in how we handle create_before_destroy Previously our handling of create_before_destroy -- and of deposed objects in particular -- was rather "implicit" and spread over various different subsystems. We'd quietly just destroy every deposed object during a destroy operation, without any user-visible plan to do so. Here we make things more explicit by tracking each deposed object individually by its pseudorandomly-allocated key. There are two different mechanisms at play here, building on the same concepts: - During a replace operation with create_before_destroy, we *pre-allocate* a DeposedKey to use for the prior object in the "apply" node and then pass that exact id to the destroy node, ensuring that we only destroy the single object we planned to destroy. In the happy path here the user never actually sees the allocated deposed key because we use it and then immediately destroy it within the same operation. However, that destroy may fail, which brings us to the second mechanism: - If any deposed objects are already present in state during _plan_, we insert a destroy change for them into the plan so that it's explicit to the user that we are going to destroy these additional objects, and then create an individual graph node for each one in DiffTransformer. The main motivation here is to be more careful in how we handle these destroys so that from a user's standpoint we never destroy something without the user knowing about it ahead of time. However, this new organization also hopefully makes the code itself a little easier to follow because the connection between the create and destroy steps of a Replace is reprseented in a single place (in DiffTransformer) and deposed instances each have their own explicit graph node rather than being secretly handled as part of the main instance-level graph node.
2018-09-20 14:30:52 -05:00
return diags.Err()
}