Add a new ChangeReason, ReasonDeleteBecauseNoMoveTarget, to provide better
information in cases where a planned deletion is due to moving a resource to
a target not in configuration.
Consider a case in which a resource instance exists in state at address A, and
the user adds a moved block to move A to address B. Whether by the user's
intention or not, address B does not exist in configuration.
Terraform combines the move from A to B, and the lack of configuration for B,
into a single delete action for the (previously nonexistent) entity B.
Prior to this commit, the Terraform plan will report that resource B will be
destroyed because it does not exist in configuration, without explicitly
connecting this to the move.
This commit provides the user an additional clue as to what has happened, in a
case in which Terraform has elided a user's action and inaction into one
potentially destructive change.
This is a clumsy way to do this, but a pragmatic way to inform potential
consumers that this part of the format is not yet finalized without having
to read the docs to see our warning about that.
We need to get some practical experience with a few different consumers
making use of this format before we can be confident that it's designed
appropriately. We're not _expecting_ to break it, but we'd like to leave
the opportunity open in case we quickly learn that there's something
non-ideal about this design.
Previously we were attempting to infer the checkable object address kind
of a given address by whether it included "output" in the position where
a resource type name would otherwise go.
That was already potentially risky because we've historically not
prevented a resource type named "output", and it's also a
forward-compatibility hazard in case we introduce additional object kinds
with entirely-new addressing schemes in future.
Given that, we'll instead always be explicit about what kind of address
we're storing in a wire or file format, so that we can make sure to always
use the intended parser when reading an address back into memory, or
return an error if we encounter a kind we're not familiar with.
This is a new-shaped representation of check results which follows the
two-tiered structure of static objects and dynamic instances of objects,
thereby allowing consumers to see which checkable objects exist in the
configuration even if a dynamic evaluation error prevented actually
expanding them all to determine their declared instances.
Eventually we'll include this in the state too, but this initially adds it
only to the plan in order to replace the now-deprecated experimental
conditions result that was present but undocumented in Terraform v1.2.
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.
Go 1.19's "fmt" has some awareness of the new doc comment formatting
conventions and adjusts the presentation of the source comments to make
it clearer how godoc would interpret them. Therefore this commit includes
various updates made by "go fmt" to acheve that.
In line with our usual convention that we make stylistic/grammar/spelling
tweaks typically only when we're "in the area" changing something else
anyway, I also took this opportunity to review most of the comments that
this updated to see if there were any other opportunities to improve them.
All the code infrastructure was there to support formatting multiple
files already.
This makes `terraform fmt` more flexible and also compliant with the
[treefmt formatter
spec](https://numtide.github.io/treefmt/docs/formatters-spec.html)
Normally, `terraform output` refreshes and reads the entire state in the command package before pulling output values out of it. This doesn't give Terraform Cloud the opportunity to apply the read state outputs org permission and instead applies the read state versions permission.
I decided to expand the state manager interface to provide a separate GetRootOutputValues function in order to give the cloud backend a more nuanced opportunity to fetch just the outputs. This required moving state Refresh/Read code that was previously in the command into the shared backend state as well as the filesystem state packages.
Previously we tried to early-exit before doing anything at all for any
no-op changes, but that means we also skip some ancillary steps like
evaluating any preconditions/postconditions.
Now we'll skip only the main action itself for plans.NoOp, and still run
through all of the other side-steps.
Since one of those other steps is emitting events through the hooks
interface, this means that now no-op actions are visible to hooks, whereas
before we always filtered them out before calling. I therefore added some
additional logic to the hooks to filter them out at the UI layer instead;
the decision for whether or not to report that we visited a particular
object and found no action required seems defensible as a UI-level concern
anyway.
* Add golden JSON test for Terraform plan
* Add data source to golden JSON plan
* Move output comparison code into shared helper function
* Add note for maintainer to contact TFC when UI changes
UI changes may potentially impact the behavior of structured run output
on TFC.
* Add test_data_source to other mock providers
* refactor: Use tfaddr for provider address parsing
* refactor: Use tfaddr for module address parsing
* deps: introduce hashicorp/terraform-registry-address
There are no good options for inserting diagnostics into the backend
lookup, or creating a backend which reports it's removal because none of
the init or GetSchema functions return any errors.
Keep a registry of the removed backend so that we can at least notify
users that a backend was removed vs an invalid name.
