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.
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.
Our existing addrs.Checkable represents a particular (possibly-dynamic)
object that can have checks associated with it.
This new addrs.ConfigCheckable represents static configuration objects
that can potentially generate addrs.Checkable objects.
The idea here is to allow us to predict from the configuration a set of
potential checkable object containers and then dynamically associate
the dynamic checkable objects with them as we make progress with planning.
This is intended for our integration of checks into the "terraform test"
testing harness, to be used instead of the weirdo builtin provider we were
using as a placeholder before we had first-class syntax for checks.
Test reporting tools find it helpful for there to be a consistent set of
test cases from one run to the next so that they can report on trends over
multiple runs, and so our ConfigCheckable addresses will serve as the
relatively-static "test case" that we'll then associate the dynamic checks
with, so that we can still talk about objects in the test result report
even if we end up not reaching them due to an upstream conditution failure.
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.
In order to include condition block results in the JSON plan output, we
must store them in the plan and its serialization.
Terraform can evaluate condition blocks multiple times, so we must be
able to update the result. Accordingly, the plan.Conditions object is a
map with keys representing the condition block's address. Condition
blocks are not referenceable in any other context, so this address form
cannot be used anywhere in the configuration.
The commit includes a new test case for the JSON output of a
refresh-only plan, which is currently the only way for a failing
condition result to be rendered through this path.
