For a while now we've had information equivalent to this in various
internal documents that we've referred to when designing features such as
config-driven refactoring, the "replace" planning option, and so forth.
However, so far we've not put that information in any sort of durable
public place that we can easily find and refer to when having design
discussions on GitHub and similar.
This is therefore an attempt to capture a summary of the three main design
patterns we've identified for planning-related behaviors, with a few
motivating examples of each one, in the hope that this will be a good
reference and some helpful inspiration for future design work.
It's intentionally not totally comprehensive of all planning behaviors
both because that would duplicate the end-user-oriented documentation and
because it would be burdensome to keep updating this document each time we
add anything new which might fit into these categories. However, we might
add a later feature to this document if it illustrates a new take or
different perspective on one of these patterns.
Rather than maintain a separate graph builder for destroy, use the
normal plan graph with some extra options. Utilize the same pattern as
the validate graph for now, where we take the normal plan graph builder
and inject a new concrete function for the destroy nodes.
All instances in state are being removed for destroy, so we can skip
checking for orphans. Because we want to use the normal plan graph, we
need to be able to still call this during destroy, so flag it off.
Destroy nodes should never participate in references. These edges didn't
come up before, because we weren't building a complete graph including
all temporary values.
- Note that it was added in v1.2, so users know whether they can use it yet.
- Fix nested indentation formatting, so the parent list item stays together.
- Minor copy edits.
- List all of the available lifecycle block arguments before diving into the
docs for each argument, for ease of reading/scanning.
This also sets an additional variable if it detects that this is an alpha
or development build, which currently does nothing but might eventually
turn on the ability to use experimental features, if we make that
something available only in prereleases.
The actions/checkout workflow does some heroics to try to fetch exactly
the commit being built and nothing else, even if asked to fetch the
history leading up to that commit. That means we don't end up having
enough information to get an accurate answer from "git describe".
Since we're intentionally relying on the git history here, we'll fetch
all of the tags explicitly after initial checkout. Although that does add
some delay to this step, we're intentionally doing this version
calculation only once as a separate workflow job so that all of the other
jobs can still benefit from this action's quicker checkout behavior.
When a user reports a "Configuration contains unknown value" error,
there is no information on what might have been unknown during apply.
Add unknown attribute paths to the diagnostic message to provide some
more information when a reproduction may not be possible. Sine this is
one of those "should never happen" types of errors which will be
reported to the developers directly, we can leave the format as the raw
internal representation for simplicity.
5417975946 addressed a regression in the
logic for catching when the newer module meta-arguments are used in
conjunction with the legacy practice of including provider configurations
inside modules, where the check started incorrectly catching situations
where the legacy nested provider configuration was in the same module
as the child call using one of those meta-arguments.
This is a regression test to catch if a similar bug arises in the future.
Since it's testing validation rules that apply to an entire configuration
tree, it ended up in a rather idiosyncratic location under the "configload"
package, rather than directly in "configs". The "configs" package only
knows how to load one module at a time, so it's harder to write a test
like this in that context. Due to it being further removed from the code
it is testing, I included a test for the correct error too in order to
increase the chance that we'll learn if future changes in the "configs"
package invalidate this regression test.
I've verified that this new test fails without the change made in the
earlier commit.
This fixes a bug introduced in 1879a39 in which initialising a module will fail
if that module contains both a provider block and a module call using for_each.
The version that was in use previously broke my runs with a nice `ssh:
handshake failed: agent unsupported algorithm "ssh-ed25519"` error. I
took a further look into this, and saw that the change that broke ssh
for me was fixed in https://github.com/golang/crypto/commit/46612604a.
Yay!
