29 Commits (148b19b0d7e36b6f2b8a169d2cb7b6069ab5d00a)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Daniel Schmidt	3cbfd39721	stacks: validate unknown component for_each type	2 years ago
Daniel Schmidt	3a7150b27e	stacks: handle unknown values in component for_each	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
Alisdair McDiarmid	f409639934	Merge pull request #34765 from hashicorp/alisdair/stack-root-input-variable-defaults ... stackruntime: Apply defaults to root variables	2 years ago
Alisdair McDiarmid	f3ec86b17b	stackruntime: Treat unset and null equally ... When handling root input variable values, we now consider unset and null values to be equivalent to each other. This is consistent with how we handle variables in embedded stacks, and very similar to how we handle variable in the modules runtime with `nullable = false`. One difference from the modules runtime case is that we do not prevent a null default value for stack variables.	2 years ago
Alisdair McDiarmid	0fe26468cd	stackruntime: Apply defaults to root variables ... When evaluating a stack's root input variables, supplied by the caller, we must apply any default values specified in the variable configuration for variables with no specified value. This commit adds this default fallback case, using NilVal as a marker indicating the lack of a specified value. If no default value exists for a variable, it is therefore required to be supplied by the caller. This commit also reports a diagnostic error in this case.	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
Liam Cervante	cec4b7b74c	stacks: validate providers based on types instead of local names (#34735) ... * stacks: validate providers based on types instead of local names * fix tests	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	b2cc7dbadf	stacks: validate the types of input variables during validation (#34722)	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	831630fabe	stacks: the plan function should stop on validation errors (#34720)	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	2472f7c773	stacks: fix flaky tests (#34708)	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	64b311d53a	stacks: apply sensitive marks to outputs from components (#34684) ... * stacks: apply sensitive marks to outputs from components * gen headers * ensure consistent test ordering	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	f0b61090a2	Move the testing MockProvider into a dedicated shared package (#34681) ... * move the testing MockProvider into a dedicated shared package * address comments * fix new changes	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	07f6621091	stacks: include resources in state when calculating required providers (#34645) ... * stacks: include resources in state when calculating required providers * also support apply time * add copywrite headers	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	3475d22741	Fix nil pointer exception when planning stacks with undeclared variables (#34638) ... * fix nil pointer exception when planning with undeclared variables * another function does the same	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
Alisdair McDiarmid	e4b319401e	stacksruntime: Add sensitive outputs tests	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	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	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	d1b0632e82	stackruntime: Add HashiCorp copyright comments	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	c1e7abafc3	stackruntime: Configure and assign provider instances ... Instead of the temporary hack of hard-coding the built-in "terraform" provider, it's now possible to declare configurations for arbitrary providers and assign them to the provider configuration slots of the root module of each component.	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	3dc3781904	stackruntime: Starting up and configuring provider plugins ... Each declared provider configuration is now started up and configured during planning. We don't actually do anything with them yet other than shut them down again once the plan is complete, but we'll improve on that in subsequent commits.	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	fbc34005ba	stackeval: Emit PlannedChange for each component instance ... We need to explicitly announce each component instance that we find declared in the stack configuration before we announce any resource instances that belong to it, because callers will rely on this message to create a link between the component instance address on each resource instance and the unexpanded component addresses previously announced by the "find stack components" static analysis call.	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	ea3b70abf0	stackeval: Component calls are now referenceable ... This means it's valid to write references like "component.foo" in expressions in a stack configuration, where the result is built from the planned output values of the root module of each component instance. For embedded stacks we intentionally designed the language to require explicit types on all output values so that we'd still be able to do type checking even when we can't calculate the output values yet. Unfortunately we can't do the same trick for components because the main Terraform module language treats output values as dynamically-typed and so an output value we can't evaluate yet could have literally any type. Therefore we concede and just return cty.DynamicVal in most failure cases here; perhaps a future edition of the main Terraform language can improve this by requiring explicitly-typed output values there too.	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	4a179ed969	stackeval: Very very basic component planning ... This is the absolute bare-minimum integration with the main Terraform language runtime to plan changes for a component. It's intentionally not yet very robust and limited only to the built-in Terraform provider because we're just trying to get the bones in place for seeing stack planning working, rather than trying to build something complete enough to ship. This currently only deals with the resource instance changes that get planned and doesn't expose the root module's output values for use elsewhere in the stack configuration. Output value handling will follow in subsequent commits.	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	d3e93e4a31	stackruntime: Initial stubbing of Plan ... This is just enough implementation of "Plan" for embedded stacks with their own input variables and output values, and exposing the final top-level output values as "planned changes". This still doesn't really do anything end-user-useful but it's helpful to have the expression evaluation and plan walk driver machinery in place before moving on to the main useful language element: component blocks. Support for components will follow in subsequent commits.	2 years ago