Since an early version of Terraform, the `destroy` command has always
had the `-force` flag to allow an auto approval of the interactive
prompt. 0.11 introduced `-auto-approve` as default to `false` when using
the `apply` command.
The `-auto-approve` flag was introduced to reduce ambiguity of it's
function, but the `-force` flag was never updated for a destroy.
People often use wrappers when automating commands in Terraform, and the
inconsistency between `apply` and `destroy` means that additional logic
must be added to the wrappers to do similar functions. Both commands are
more or less able to run with similar syntax, and also heavily share
their code.
This commit updates the command in `destroy` to use the `-auto-approve` flag
making working with the Terraform CLI a more consistent experience.
We leave in `-force` in `destroy` for the time-being and flag it as
deprecated to ensure a safe switchover period.
As part of the 0.10 core/provider split we moved this provider, along with
all the others, out into its own repository.
In retrospect, the "terraform" provider doesn't really make sense to be
separated since it's just a thin wrapper around some core code anyway,
and so re-integrating it into core avoids the confusion that results when
Terraform Core and the terraform provider have inconsistent versions of
the backend code and dependencies.
There is no good reason to use a different version of the backend code
in the provider than in core, so this new "internal provider" mechanism
is stricter than the old one: it's not possible to use an external build
of this provider at all, and version constraints for it are rejected as
a result.
This provider is also run in-process rather than in a child process, since
again it's just a very thin wrapper around code that's already running
in Terraform core anyway, and so the process barrier between the two does
not create enough advantage to warrant the additional complexity.
In the 0.10 release we added an opt-in mode where Terraform would prompt
interactively for confirmation during apply. We made this opt-in to give
those who wrap Terraform in automation some time to update their scripts
to explicitly opt out of this behavior where appropriate.
Here we switch the default so that a "terraform apply" with no arguments
will -- if it computes a non-empty diff -- display the diff and wait for
the user to type "yes" in similar vein to the "terraform destroy" command.
This makes the commonly-used "terraform apply" a safe workflow for
interactive use, so "terraform plan" is now mainly for use in automation
where a separate planning step is used. The apply command remains
non-interactive when given an explicit plan file.
The previous behavior -- though not recommended -- can be obtained by
explicitly setting the -auto-approve option on the apply command line,
and indeed that is how all of the tests are updated here so that they can
continue to run non-interactively.
We encourage users to share the "terraform version" output as part of
filing an issue, but previously it only printed the core Terraform version
and this left provider maintainers with no information about which
_provider_ version an issue relates to.
Here we make a best effort to show versions for providers, though we will
omit some or all of them if either "terraform init" hasn't been run (and
so no providers were selected yet) or if there are other inconsistencies
that would cause Terraform to object on startup and require a re-run of
"terraform init".
Two different errors here caused this test to pass even though it was
incorrect: the wanted version string was incorrect, but the test for it
was also inverted, and so together this made the test pass even though
it was actually not testing the output at all.
This is a tough one to unit tests because the behavior is tangled up in
the code that hits releases.hashicorp.com, so we'll add this e2etest as
some extra insurance that this works end-to-end.
Since we now have a guide that recommends some specific ways to run
Terraform in automation, we can mimic those suggestions in an e2e test and
thus ensure they keep working.
Here we test the three different approaches suggested in the guide:
- init, plan, apply (main case)
- init, apply (e.g. for deploying to a QA/staging environment)
- init, plan (e.g. for verifying a pull request)
In 6712192724 we stopped counting data
source destroys in the destroy tally since they are an implementation
detail.
This caused this test to start failing, though since the new behavior is
correct here we just update the test to match.
Go 1.9 adds this new function which, when called, marks the caller as
being a "helper function". Helper function stack frames are then skipped
when trying to find a line of test code to blame for a test failure, so
that the code in the main test function appears in the test failure output
rather than a line within the helper function itself.
This covers many -- but probaly not all -- of our test helpers across
various packages.
This e2etest runs an init, plan, apply, destroy sequence against a test
configuration using the real template and null providers downloaded from
the official repository.
This test _does_ trample a bit on the scope of some already-existing
tests, but this is mainly just to check our assumptions about how
Terraform behaves to ensure that we can reach our main conclusion here:
that the main Terraform workflow commands interact correctly with each
other in real use and we can complete the full workflow.
We already have good tests for the business logic around provider
installation, but the existing tests all stub out the main repository
server. This test completes that coverage by verifying that the installer
is able to run against the real repository and install an official release
of the template provider.
This basic test is here primarily because it's one of the few that can
run without reaching out to external services, and so it means our usual
test runs will catch situations where the main executable build is
somehow broken.
The version command itself is not very interesting to test, but it's
convenient in that its behavior is very predictable and self-contained.
Previously we had no automated testing of whether we can produce a
Terraform executable that actually works. Our various functional tests
have good coverage of specific Terraform features and whole operations,
but we lacked end-to-end testing of actual usage of the generated binary,
without any stubbing.
This package is intended as a vehicle for such end-to-end testing. When
run normally under "go test" it will produce a build of the main Terraform
binary and make it available for tests to execute. The harness exposes
a flag for whether tests are allowed to reach out to external network
services, controlled with our standard TF_ACC environment variable, so
that basic local tests can be safely run as part of "make test" while
more elaborate tests can be run easily when desired.
It also provides a separate mode of operation where the included script
make-archive.sh can be used to produce a self-contained test archive that
can be copied to another system to run the tests there. This is intended
to allow testing of cross-compiled binaries, by shipping them over to
the target OS and architecture to run without requiring a full Go compiler
installation on the target system.
The goal here is not to test again functionality that's already
well-covered by our existing tests, but rather to test chains of normal
operations against the build binary that are not otherwise tested
together.
