55 Commits (stacks-variable-validations)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Daniel Schmidt	d813ad14f7	add deprecation marks	3 weeks ago
James Bardin	807e084130	final renaming for function results	10 months ago
James Bardin	a6ec17cb77	rename function results table ... Remove "provider" from the function results fields since it's not going to be exclusively used for providers any longer.	10 months ago
James Bardin	d016070564	move function results hashing to lang ... We need to abstract the function results verification to use internally too, so start by moving it out of the providers code.	10 months ago
Daniel Banck	b2b42c0fb4	Store resource identities in state (TF-23255) (#36464) ... * Persist resource identity in Terraform state * make syncdeps * Move identity schema merging closer to the protocol * mock GetResourceIdentitySchemas * Fix identity refresh tests * Add more tests * Change grcpwrap upgrade identity * Review feedback * Remove unnecessary version conversion * Check if GetResourceIdentitySchemas RPC call is implemented * Update function signature docs * Adapt protocol changes * Check unimplemented error for identities in GetSchema	12 months ago
Liam Cervante	bfa320c7b0	stacks: represent ephemeral inputs and outputs as null (#35824) ... * stacks: represent ephemeral inputs and outputs as null * quick fix: remove unnecessary check	1 year ago
James Bardin	384f2d4fab	update collections to use for-range method	1 year ago
Liam Cervante	b38fd17cf9	stacks: emit removal notices for empty components (#35738) ... * stacks: emit removal notices for empty components * fix tests and checks	1 year ago
Liam Cervante	e78294d42b	stacks: stop encoding values into msgpack twice (#35734)	1 year ago
Liam Cervante	598648b66f	stacks: handle input and output state during delete plans (#35726)	1 year ago
Liam Cervante	d142486a40	stacks: expand plan and apply outputs for inputs (#35724)	1 year ago
Liam Cervante	73e3f8096b	stacks: complete stack output implementation for plan and apply (#35723)	1 year ago
Liam Cervante	50233d7a78	stacks: support sensitive input values in planned changes (#35640) ... * stacks: support sensitive input values in planned changes * stacks: Fix panic when applying sensitive inputs The stacks-specific check that a given plan's input variable values remain unchanged at apply time would previously panic when given a marked value. Marks are not important for this check, so we simply remove them to ensure that it passes. This seems in line with how AssertObjectCompatible works, which I'm taking as precedent. The new test added in this commit panics without the corresponding code change. --------- Co-authored-by: Alisdair McDiarmid <alisdair@users.noreply.github.com>	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	f1ae07b1af	stacks: add support for provider functions in .tfstack.hcl files (#35610) ... * stacks: fix bug preventing cross-provider move refactorings * also make provider functions work * stacks: add support for provider functions in .tfstack.hcl files	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	915b174da3	stacks: split the terraform1 RPC package into per-service packages (#35513) ... * stacks: split the terraform1 RPC package into per-service packages * pull latest changes	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	471bddf3ba	json plan: update resource index and import ids to support unknown values (#35518)	2 years ago
Daniel Schmidt	4faf0f25dd	guard against nil resource key	2 years ago
Daniel Schmidt	c693c39677	use resource_name instead of name ... Co-authored-by: Liam Cervante <liam.cervante@hashicorp.com>	2 years ago
Daniel Schmidt	df85a22343	stacks: add fields required to display plan	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	87bbc47737	stacks: include plan mode in stacks plan format (#35405) ... * stacks: include plan mode in stacks plan format * fix tests * fix missed files	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	ec2510fc3d	stacks: Track raw stack as separate messages in raw plan ... Previously we had the entire raw prior state serialized as part of the "plan header" message in the raw plan, which meant that the maximum state size was constrained by the maximum allowed gRPC message size. Instead now we'll use a separate raw plan element for each raw prior state element, so that we're limited only in the size of individual items rather than size of the state as a whole. This deals with the last remaining (non-deprecated) case where our RPC protocol tries to pack an entire raw state or plan into a single protobuf message, and so we're now standardized on using a streaming approach in all cases.	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	46a6d3f637	stacks: include moved and imported metadata in change descriptions (#35439)	2 years ago
Daniel Schmidt	b62a67394b	stacks: save plantimestamp to plan	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	e74896bd24	stackruntime: Handle apply-time-specified input variables ... When the topmost stack configuration declares an ephemeral input variable, its values must be provided separately for each of the plan and apply phases. Therefore here we extend the API to allow specifying input variable values during the apply phase, and add rules to check whether all of the apply-time-required input variables have been specified and whether any non-ephemeral variables are either unspecified or re-specified with equal values during the apply phase. This also extends the FindStackConfigurationComponents response to include more metadata about the input variables and output values so that a caller can know which ones are ephemeral. The name of that RPC function had already become a little too specific with the inclusion of embedded stack information and is even moreso now; we might choose to rename it to something more generic like "AnalyzeStackConfiguration" in future, but that'd be a breaking change and therefore requires more coordination.	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	9b95898f63	stacks: emit events for deferred actions (#35325) ... * stacks: emit events for deferred actions * deferral allowed is always on * Update internal/rpcapi/stacks.go Co-authored-by: Daniel Schmidt <danielmschmidt92@gmail.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Daniel Schmidt <danielmschmidt92@gmail.com>	2 years ago
Daniel Schmidt	59ead5356f	stacks: update RPC APIs with deferral information (#35125) ... * stacks: add deferred resource instance planned change to protobuf * stacks: add deferred resource instance to stack plan sequence * stacks: add planned change for deferred actions * stacks: refactor planned change resource instance planned moving the components out of the main function definition so that we can reuse the implementation for deferred resource instances which wraps the message used for PlannedChangeResourceInstancePlanned * stacks: track deferred changes in stackplan * add simple tests * fix tests * address comments --------- Co-authored-by: Liam Cervante <liam.cervante@hashicorp.com>	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	30e2fd6525	Handle marks a little more consistently ... In the very first implementation of "sensitive values" we were unfortunately not disciplined about separating the idea of "marked value" from the idea of "sensitive value" (where the latter is a subset of the former). The first implementation just assumed that any marking whatsoever meant "sensitive". We later improved that by adding the marks package and the marks.Sensitive value to standardize on the representation of "sensitive value" as being a value marked with _that specific mark_. However, we did not perform a thorough review of all of the mark-handling codepaths to make sure they all agreed on that definition. In particular, the state and plan models were both designed as if they supported arbitrary marks but then in practice marks other than marks.Sensitive would be handled in various inconsistent ways: dropped entirely, or interpreted as if marks.Sensitive, and possibly do so inconsistently when a value is used only in memory vs. round-tripped through a wire/file format. The goal of this commit is to resolve those oddities so that there are now two possible situations: - General mark handling: some codepaths genuinely handle marks generically, by transporting them from input value to output value in a way consistent with how cty itself deals with marks. This is the ideal case because it means we can add new marks in future and assume these codepaths will handle them correctly without any further modifications. - Sensitive-only mark preservation: the codepaths that interact with our wire protocols and file formats typically have only specialized support for sensitive values in particular, and lack support for any other marks. Those codepaths are now subject to a new rule where they must return an error if asked to deal with any other mark, so that if we introduce new marks in future we'll be forced either to define how we'll avoid those markings reaching the file/wire formats or extend the file/wire formats to support the new marks. Some new helper functions in package marks are intended to standardize how we deal with the "sensitive values only" situations, in the hope that this will make it easier to keep things consistent as the codebase evolves in future. In practice the modules runtime only ever uses marks.Sensitive as a mark today, so all of these checks are effectively covering "should never happen" cases. The only other mark Terraform uses is an implementation detail of "terraform console" and does not interact with any of the codepaths that only support sensitive values in particular.	2 years ago
Daniel Schmidt	949a0e5585	Merge pull request #34755 from hashicorp/TF-10993 ... stacks: expose replace paths in grpc api	2 years ago
Daniel Schmidt	2fa4cc7b53	stacks: use existing conversion for attribute paths	2 years ago
CJ Horton	5a750561e6	round-trip check results through stack plans ... Components expect that check results will be round-tripped through the plan in order to update unknown check results during the apply. We hadn't wired this up for stack plans, resulting in panics when the apply tries to update a check status that doesn't exist.	2 years ago
Daniel Schmidt	57dd94fcde	stacks: expose replace paths in grpc api ... Co-authored-by: Katy Moe <katy@katy.moe>	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	a45d4467f1	stackeval: Don't fail when data resource is removed ... Due to an oversight in our handling of resource instance objects that are neither in configuration nor plan -- which is true for data resources that have since been removed from the configuration -- we were generating plan change objects that were lacking a provider configuration address, which made them syntactically invalid and thus not reloadable using the raw plan parser. This is a bit of a strange situation since we don't technically _need_ a provider configuration address for these; all we're going to do is just unceremoniously delete them from the state during apply anyway. However, we always have the provider configuration address available anyway, so adding this in here is overall simpler than changing the parser, the models it populates, and all of the downstream users of those models to treat this field as optional. This commit is more test case than it is fix, since the fix was relatively straightforward once I had a test case to reproduce the problem it's fixing.	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	884e1fb2a4	terraform: Plans can be "complete" and "applyable" ... These ideas are both already implied by some logic elsewhere in the system, but until now we didn't have the decision logic centralized in a single place that could therefore evolve over time without necessarily always updating every caller together. We'll now have the modules runtime produce its own boolean ruling about each characteristic, which callers can rely on for the mechanical decision-making of whether to offer the user an "approve" prompt, and whether to remind the user after apply that it was an incomplete plan that will probably therefore need at least one more plan/apply round to converge. The "Applyable" flag directly replaces the previous method Plan.CanApply, with equivalent logic. Making this a field instead of a method means that we can freeze it as part of a saved plan, rather than recalculating it when we reload the plan, and we can export the field value in our export formats like JSON while ensuring it'll always be consistent with what Terraform is using internally. Callers can (and should) still use other context in the plan to return more tailored messages for specific situations they already know about that might be useful to users, but with these flags as a baseline callers can now just fall back to a generic presentation when encountering a situation they don't yet understand, rather than making the wrong decision and causing something strange to happen. That is: a lack of awareness of a new rule will now cause just a generic message in the UI, rather than incorrect behavior. This commit mostly just deals with populating the flags, and then all of the direct consequences of that on our various tests. Further changes to actually make use of these flags elsewhere in the system will follow in later commits, both in this repository and in other repositories.	2 years ago
Alisdair McDiarmid	1d3f863f2b	stackruntime: Support sensitive component inputs ... Components can emit sensitive values as outputs, which can be consumed as inputs to other components. This commit ensures that such values are correctly processed in order to pass their sensitivity to the modules runtime.	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	a4d61733f6	stackplan: Include extra info in raw component instance plan ... We'll now track the planned action, the component addresses we depend on, and the planned output values.	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	25a514f846	stackeval: Populate planned component instance more thoroughly ... We'll now track a more realistic Action, the components that the component instance depends on, and the planned output values.	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	bcccd67e32	tfstackdata1: A local DynamicValue message type ... Previously we were directly using the planproto.DynamicValue message type, but that's symmetrical with plans.DynamicValue in that it encodes only the value itself and not associated metadata such as the paths that have sensitive value marks. This new tfstackdata1.DynamicValue therefore echoes terraform1.DynamicValue by carrying both the value and the metadata together. This implies a slight change to one of the existing message types that was encoding a map of planned input values for each component instance, but in practice we're not currently making use of that data anyway -- it's there to enable a hypothetical extra correctness check in the stacks runtime so that we can detect inconsistency problems closer to their source -- and so this change doesn't affect anything in practice. Before we make use of it we'll probably want to change the internal API a little so that we can preserve the sensitive value metadata on those values, but that's beyond the scope of this PR. The main point of adding this is to track the output values for a component instance as part of the raw state, and so the new field for that is also added here although nothing will read or write it yet. Actual use of that new field will follow in future commits.	2 years ago
Matej Risek	8ac8f18636	Feature/add additional fields to resource proto (#34364) ... Add additional fields to the AppliedChange#ResourceInstance We're adding Resource Mode, Resource Type and Provider Address to the AppliedChange's ResourceInstance	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	0952457778	stackplan: Remove stale TODO about output value changes ... This recorded that we needed to encode the type information for the output values. In the end we didn't need to do anything special for that because we're borrowing the pre-serialized data originally designed for the traditional Terraform CLI saved plan format, and that encodes the type information as part of the MessagePack encoding in-band.	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	972f1c0678	stackplan: Track provider config for every resource instance change ... Previously we were still partially relying on the record of this in the embedded planproto object, but since we're now allowing "planned changes" that don't actually include a change in that traditional sense we need to track the provider configuration address separately as a top-level field. As with some of the addresses before, this means we're now storing the provider config address redundantly in two places when there _is_ a planproto change. Hopefully we'll improve that someday, but we don't need to sweat it too much right now because this only affects the internal raw plan format that is not subject to any compatibility promises between releases, so we can freely change it in any future version.	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	4e34e6ebfa	stacks: Track prior state for all resource instance objects ... Previously our raw plan data structure only included information about resource instances that have planned actions, which meant we were missing those which only get their state updated during refresh and don't actually need any real work done. Now we'll track everything, accepting that some "planned changes" for resource instance objects will not actually include a planned change in the typical sense, and instead only represent a state update.	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	3d8e95d153	rpcapi(Stacks): Support multiple descriptions in a "PlannedChange" ... Previously we had an asymmetry between PlannedChange and AppliedChange, where the latter supported any number of "description" objects whereas the former only supported zero or one. This change then is primarily motivated by making these two APIs consistent, but also has some other benefits: - The generated RPC stub packages will now have a specific type to use to represent _just_ a change description for a plan, so callers can pass around and preserve just those objects in isolation, rather than always having to use the entire PlannedChange message for that purpose. - This gives us a little more flexibility if later we find we need to return more than one description associated with a single logical change in future. For example, if we end up needing to make a breaking change to how we describe a particular kind of change, we might send an object containing both the old form and the new form together, and instruct clients that support the new form to treat it as taking priority over the old form when both are present. We don't yet know of any specific reason to do this, but this protocol is likely to be with us for a long time and so we need to prioritize leaving room for future additions we haven't thought of yet. This is a breaking change to the API from a client's perspective, but that's acceptable at the current stage of development where nothing has been committed in a stable release yet.	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	8fd29e9439	stacks: Preserve prior state from plan to apply ... We need to retain the prior state (in a form that Terraform Core's modules runtime can accept) between the plan and apply phases because Terraform uses it to verify that the provider's "final plan" is consistent with the initial plan. We previously tried to do this by reusing the "old" value from the planned change, but that's not really possible in practice because of the historical implementation detail that Terraform wants state information in a JSON format and plan information in MessagePack. This also contains the beginnings of handling the "discarding" of unrecognized keys from the state data structures, although we'll probably need to do more in that area later since this is just the bare minimum.	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	5372d5eb98	stacks+rpcapi(stacks): Model deposed objects for resource instances ... Previously we incorrectly assumed that resource instances only have one "current" object each. However, resource instances can also have deposed objects which we must also keep track of. This is a breaking change to the rpcapi since we're now using a new message type for a resource instance _object_ address in several places. That breakage is intentional here because at the time of writing this commit the rpcapi is not yet in any stable release and we want to force updating our existing internal client to properly handle deposed objects too.	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	69aa51b9ff	stackruntime: Fix some quirks of data sent from plan to apply ... We previously took a few shortcuts just to more quickly produce a proof of concept. This gets us considerably closer to a properly-working handoff from plan to apply, at least for create, update, and replace actions. Destroying stuff that's been removed from the configuration will take some further work since currently everything we do is driven by objects in the configuration. That will follow in later commits.	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	c67920ce4b	stackplan: Add HashiCorp copyright comments	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	74215a4451	stacks: Include resource type schema in PlannedChange and AppliedChange ... Unfortunately for historical reasons the "terraform" package produces state and plan artifacts that have dynamic data elements pre-encoded in the formats that Terraform CLI's traditional plan and state formats use. Since Stacks uses different plan and state models, and exclusively uses MessagePack encoding for dynamic values in both, we'll sometimes need to transcode from one format to another when generating and decoding the stacks-oriented representations. Transcoding between these serialization formats requires access to the relevant schema because the formats themselves each have an infoset that is only a subset of Terraform's type system. Therefore we'll now annotate the PlannedChange and AppliedChange objects that include provider-specific data types with the schema required to transcode them. This commit does not yet actually arrange to make use of those schemas. That will follow in later commits.	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	48518b8233	stacks: A very basic stub of applied resource instance change announcements ... We'd like to start developing some clients for this part of the RPC API concurrently with remaining work here in Terraform Core, and so this is a bare-minimum implementation of emitting "applied change" events for resource instances just so there's something for client developers to test against. There are various things wrong with this, including but not limited to: - It always reports that the new state for a resource instance is an empty object, rather than including the correct updated object. - It only supports "current" resource instance objects, and ignores deposed ones. - It just uses the resource instance address alone as the key for the state description map, which is fine for now when we only have one kind of description object anyway but will not be sufficient for a real implementation that needs to emit various different kinds of object. We'll need to rework most of this in future commits, but this is hopefully sufficient to start implementing and testing API clients, at least to some extend, despite the crudity of the results.	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	d99985720f	stacks: Carry input variable values from plan to apply ... We need to preserve the input variable values provided during the plan phase so we can reuse them during the apply phase to recalculate derived results based on new information learned during the apply process. We also need to recalculate the input values for individual components during the apply phase, so we can react to previously-unknown values that come from other upstream components.	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	b8923a5f94	stackruntime: Persist a component's plantimestamp in the plan ... We need to preserve the module runtime's chosen plan timestamp through to the apply phase so that plantimestamp function calls during the apply phase will return the same result as during the planning phase. This also means that we will now no longer emit a "component instance" planned change object if the planning operation fails so much that there is no plans.Plan object returned, but that's at least consistent with the fact that we also don't report any resource instance changes in the same situation. Event emission is always best-effort when the result has errors.	2 years ago