9 Commits (1dabdf0dcd5ab48bf706177da8ffeda89e323dc2)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Alisdair McDiarmid	b9f3dab035	json-output: Release format version 1.0	5 years ago
Alisdair McDiarmid	78c4a8c461	json-output: Previous address for resource changes ... Configuration-driven moves are represented in the plan file by setting the resource's `PrevRunAddr` to a different value than its `Addr`. For JSON plan output, we here add a new field to resource changes, `previous_address`, which is present and non-empty only if the resource is planned to be moved. Like the CLI UI, refresh-only plans will include move-only changes in the resource drift JSON output. In normal plan mode, these are elided to avoid redundancy with planned changes.	5 years ago
Martin Atkins	f0034beb33	core: refactoring.ImpliedMoveStatements replaces NodeCountBoundary ... Going back a long time we've had a special magic behavior which tries to recognize a situation where a module author either added or removed the "count" argument from a resource that already has instances, and to silently rename the zeroth or no-key instance so that we don't plan to destroy and recreate the associated object. Now we have a more general idea of "move statements", and specifically the idea of "implied" move statements which replicates the same heuristic we used to use for this behavior, we can treat this magic renaming rule as just another "move statement", special only in that Terraform generates it automatically rather than it being written out explicitly in the configuration. In return for wiring that in, we can now remove altogether the NodeCountBoundary graph node type and its associated graph transformer, CountBoundaryTransformer. We handle moves as a preprocessing step before building the plan graph, so we no longer need to include any special nodes in the graph to deal with that situation. The test updates here are mainly for the graph builders themselves, to acknowledge that indeed we're no longer inserting the NodeCountBoundary vertices. The vertices that NodeCountBoundary previously depended on now become dependencies of the special "root" vertex, although in many cases here we don't see that explicitly because of the transitive reduction algorithm, which notices when there's already an equivalent indirect dependency chain and removes the redundant edge. We already have plenty of test coverage for these "count boundary" cases in the context tests whose names start with TestContext2Plan_count and TestContext2Apply_resourceCount, all of which continued to pass here without any modification and so are not visible in the diff. The test functions particularly relevant to this situation are: - TestContext2Plan_countIncreaseFromNotSet - TestContext2Plan_countDecreaseToOne - TestContext2Plan_countOneIndex - TestContext2Apply_countDecreaseToOneCorrupted The last of those in particular deals with the situation where we have both a no-key instance _and_ a zero-key instance in the prior state, which is interesting here because to exercises an intentional interaction between refactoring.ImpliedMoveStatements and refactoring.ApplyMoves, where we intentionally generate an implied move statement that produces a collision and then expect ApplyMoves to deal with it in the same way as it would deal with all other collisions, and thus ensure we handle both the explicit and implied collisions in the same way. This does affect some UI-level tests, because a nice side-effect of this new treatment of this old feature is that we can now report explicitly in the UI that we're assigning new addresses to these objects, whereas before we just said nothing and hoped the user would just guess what had happened and why they therefore weren't seeing a diff. The backend/local plan tests actually had a pre-existing bug where they were using a state with a different instance key than the config called for but getting away with it because we'd previously silently fix it up. That's still fixed up, but now done with an explicit mention in the UI and so I made the state consistent with the configuration here so that the tests would be able to recognize _real_ differences where present, as opposed to the errant difference caused by that inconsistency.	5 years ago
Alisdair McDiarmid	f0cf4235f9	cli: Refactor resource drift rendering	5 years ago
Alisdair McDiarmid	cd29c3e5fd	Revert "json-output: Release format version 1.0"	5 years ago
Alisdair McDiarmid	b60f201eed	json-output: Release format version 1.0	5 years ago
Alisdair McDiarmid	3326ab7dae	json-output: Omit unchanged resource_drift entries ... Previously, if any resources were found to have drifted, the JSON plan output would include a drift entry for every resource in state. This commit aligns the JSON plan output with the CLI UI, and only includes those resources where the old value does not equal the new value---i.e. drift has been detected. Also fixes a bug where the "address" field was missing from the drift output, and adds some test coverage.	5 years ago
Kristin Laemmert	ac03d35997	jsonplan and jsonstate: include sensitive_values in state representations (#28889) ... * jsonplan and jsonstate: include sensitive_values in state representations A sensitive_values field has been added to the resource in state and planned values which is a map of all sensitive attributes with the values set to true. It wasn't entirely clear to me if the values in state would suffice, or if we also need to consult the schema - I believe that this is sufficient for state files written since v0.15, and if that's incorrect or insufficient, I'll add in the provider schema check as well. I also updated the documentation, and, since we've considered this before, bumped the FormatVersions for both jsonstate and jsonplan.	5 years ago
Martin Atkins	ffe056bacb	Move command/ to internal/command/ ... This is part of a general effort to move all of Terraform's non-library package surface under internal in order to reinforce that these are for internal use within Terraform only. If you were previously importing packages under this prefix into an external codebase, you could pin to an earlier release tag as an interim solution until you've make a plan to achieve the same functionality some other way.	5 years ago