* Rename module name from "github.com/hashicorp/terraform" to "github.com/placeholderplaceholderplaceholder/opentf".
Signed-off-by: Jakub Martin <kubam@spacelift.io>
* Gofmt.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Martin <kubam@spacelift.io>
* Regenerate protobuf.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Martin <kubam@spacelift.io>
* Fix comments.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Martin <kubam@spacelift.io>
* Undo issue and pull request link changes.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Martin <kubam@spacelift.io>
* Undo comment changes.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Martin <kubam@spacelift.io>
* Fix comment.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Martin <kubam@spacelift.io>
* Undo some link changes.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Martin <kubam@spacelift.io>
* make generate && make protobuf
Signed-off-by: Jakub Martin <kubam@spacelift.io>
---------
Signed-off-by: Jakub Martin <kubam@spacelift.io>
* Add support for scoped resources
* refactor existing checks addrs and add check block addr
* Add configuration for check blocks
* introduce check blocks into the terraform node and transform graph
* address comments
* address comments
* don't execute checks during destroy operations
* don't even include check nodes for destroy operations
This is a mostly mechanical refactor with a handful of changes which
are necessary due to the semantic difference between earlyconfig and
configs.
When parsing root and descendant modules in the module installer, we now
check the core version requirements inline. If the Terraform version is
incompatible, we drop any other module loader diagnostics. This ensures
that future language additions don't clutter the output and confuse the
user.
We also add two new checks during the module load process:
* Don't try to load a module with a `nil` source address. This is a
necessary change due to the move away from earlyconfig.
* Don't try to load a module with a blank name (i.e. `module ""`).
Because our module loading manifest uses the stringified module path
as its map key, this causes a collision with the root module, and a
later panic. This is the bug which triggered this refactor in the
first place.
In an earlier commit we changed the states.CheckResults model to
explicitly model the config object vs. dynamic checkable object hierarchy,
but neglected to update the logic in Terraform Core to take that into
account when propagating the object expansion decisions from the plan
phase to the apply phase. That meant that we were incorrectly classifying
zero-instance resources always as having an unknown number of instances,
rather than possibly being known to have zero instances.
This now follows the two-level heirarchy of the data structure, which has
the nice side-effect that we can remove some of the special-case methods
from checks.State that we were using to bulk-load data: the data is now
shaped in the appropriate way to reload the data using the same method
the plan phase would've used to record the results in the first place.
A significant goal of the design changes around checks in earlier commits
(with the introduction of package "checks") was to allow us to
differentiate between a configuration object that we didn't expand at all
due to an upstream error, which has _unknown_ check status, and a
configuration object that expanded to zero dynamic objects, which
therefore has a _passing_ check status.
However, our initial lowering of checks.State into states.CheckResults
stayed with the older model of just recording each leaf check in isolation,
without any tracking of the containers.
This commit therefore lightly reworks our representation of check results
in the state and plan with two main goals:
- The results are grouped by the static configuration object they came
from, and we capture an aggregate status for each of those so that
we can differentiate an unknown aggregate result from a passing
aggregate result which has zero dynamic associated objects.
- The granularity of results is whole checkable objects rather than
individual checks, because checkable objects have durable addresses
between runs, but individual checks for an object are more of a
syntactic convenience to make it easier for module authors to declare
many independent conditions that each have their own error messages.
Since v1.2 exposed some details of our checks model into the JSON plan
output there are some unanswered questions here about how we can shift to
reporting in the two-level heirarchy described above. For now I've
preserved structural compatibility but not semantic compatibility: any
parser that was written against that format should still function but will
now see fewer results. We'll revisit this in a later commit and consider
other structures and what to do about our compatibility constraint on the
v1.2 structure.
Otherwise though, this is an internal-only change which preserves all of
the existing main behaviors of conditions as before, and just gets us
ready to build user-facing features in terms of this new structure.
The "checks" package is an expansion what we previously called
plans.Conditions to accommodate a new requirement that we be able to track
which checks we're expecting to run even if we don't actually get around
to running them, which will be helpful when we start using checks as part
of our module testing story because test reporting tools appreciate there
being a relatively consistent set of test cases from one run to the next.
So far this should be essentially a no-op change from an external
functionality standpoint, aside from some minor adjustments to how we
report some of the error and warning cases from condition evaluation in
light of the fact that the "checks" package can now track errors as a
different outcome than a failure of a valid check.
As is often the case with anything which changes what we track
in the EvalContext and persist between plan and apply, Terraform Core is
pretty brittle and so this had knock-on effects elsewhere too. Again, the
goal is for these changes to not create any material externally-visible
difference, and just to accommodate the new assumption that there will
always be a "checks" object available for tracking during a graph walk.
The checks.Checks type aims to encapsulate keeping track of check results
during a run and then reporting on them afterwards even if the run was
aborted early for some reason.
The intended model here is that each new run starts with an entirely fresh
checks.Checks, with all of the statuses therefore initially unknown, and
gradually populates the check results as we walk the graph in Terraform
Core. This means that even if we don't complete the run due to an error
or due to targeting options we'll still report anything we didn't visit
yet as unknown.
This commit only includes the modeling of checks in the checks package.
For now this is just dead code, and we'll wire it in to Terraform Core in
subsequent commits.
