26 Commits (27770ee8053da48fbb684fd23d415aae376d2bed)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Bruno Schaatsbergen	098234e244	states: check root output value changes in refresh-only mode (#35812) ... * check root output values when determining plan applicability in refresh mode In refresh-only mode, we do not anticipate proposing any actions; however, a plan is marked as “applyable” if there are changes in the state between runs. Currently, a plan is considered “applyable” only when there are differences in managed resources. This approach seems to overlook changes in root output values. As a result, a plan can be marked as non-applyable, even when there are changes in the root output value, due to the lack of detected changes since only managed resources were checked. * set 'applyable' to true	1 year 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
James Bardin	8655b08b19	fix sensitive_attributes in test ... Add the missing sensitive_attributes to the test state, and update the output to reflect the new `"checks"` attribute name.	2 years ago
Andrew Hickman	49f99db1c2	`terraform show -json`: Add Errored field to output for plan (#33372) ... * Add Errored field to JSON output * Fix test error message	3 years ago
Liam Cervante	14123e277c	Include sensitive metadata from the schema when building the json state output (#33059) ... * include sensitive metadata from the schema when building the json state output * found another test case	3 years ago
Liam Cervante	d212a72d1d	structured run output: impose canonical ordering on jsonstate and jsonplan packages (#32649)	3 years ago
Alisdair McDiarmid	48d64eabb2	json-output: Extended detail for unknown outputs ... Planned output changes are represented in the JSON output format using the same change object as planned resource changes. This structure includes an `after` value and a parallel `after_unknown` value, which can be combined to determine which specific parts of a value are known only at apply time. Previously, structured output values would be marked in the JSON plan as coarsely known or unknown, even if only some subset of the structure will be known only at apply time. This simplification was unnecessary, and this commit reuses the same logic for resource changes to give more information to consumers of this format. For example, consider this output: output "bar" { value = tolist([ "hello", timestamp(), "world", ]) } The plan output for this output would be: + bar = [ + "hello", + (known after apply), + "world", ] For the same plan, the JSON output was previously: "bar": { "actions": [ "create" ], "before": null, "after_unknown": true, "before_sensitive": false, "after_sensitive": false } After this commit, the output is instead: "bar": { "actions": [ "create" ], "before": null, "after": [ "hello", null, "world" ], "after_unknown": [ false, true, false ], "before_sensitive": false, "after_sensitive": false }	4 years ago
Alisdair McDiarmid	12c8f9498c	json-output: Add output type to JSON format ... Previously the supported JSON plan and state formats included only serialized output values, which was a lossy serialization of the Terraform type system. This commit adds a type field in the usual cty JSON format, which allows reconstitution of the original value. For example, previously a list(string) and a set(string) containing the same values were indistinguishable. This change serializes these as follows: { "value": ["a","b","c"], "type": ["list","string"] } and: { "value": ["a","b","c"], "type": ["set","string"] }	4 years ago
Alisdair McDiarmid	bb35f02c95	Conclude preconditions/postconditions experiment	4 years ago
Alisdair McDiarmid	c5d10bdef1	core: Store condition block results in plan ... 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.	4 years ago
nozaq	3c32f7a56c	jsonconfig: add implicitly created provider configs	4 years ago
nozaq	0ce040405c	jsonconfig: fix provider mappings with same names	4 years ago
nozaq	7f4019e1f6	jsonconfig: fix keys for default providers ... Fixes provider config keys to reflect implicit provider inheritance.	4 years ago
Alisdair McDiarmid	f5b90f84a8	jsonconfig: Improve provider configuration output ... When rendering configuration as JSON, we have a single map of provider configurations at the top level, since these are globally applicable. Each resource has an opaque key into this map which points at the configuration data for the provider. This commit fixes two bugs in this implementation: - Resources in non-root modules had an invalid provider config key, which meant that there was never a valid reference to the provider config block. These keys were prefixed with the local module name instead of the path to the module. This is now corrected. - Modules with passed provider configs would point to either an empty provider config block or one which is not present at all. This has been fixed so that these resources point to the provider config block from the calling module (or wherever up the module tree it was originally defined). We also add a "full_name" key-value pair to the provider config block, with the entire fully-qualified provider name including hostname and namespace.	4 years ago
Martin Atkins	94cbc8fb5d	experiments: config_driven_move has concluded ... Based on feedback during earlier alpha releases, we've decided to move forward with the current design for the first phase of config-driven refactoring. Therefore here we've marked the experiment as concluded with no changes to the most recent incarnation of the functionality. The other changes here are all just updating test fixtures to no longer declare that they are using experimental features.	4 years ago
Alisdair McDiarmid	b9f3dab035	json-output: Release format version 1.0	5 years ago
Martin Atkins	a1a713cf28	core: Report ActionReasons when we plan to delete "orphans" ... There are a few different reasons why a resource instance tracked in the prior state might be considered an "orphan", but previously we reported them all identically in the planned changes. In order to help users understand the reason for a surprising planned delete, we'll now try to specify an additional reason for the planned deletion, covering all of the main reasons why that could happen. This commit only introduces the new detail to the plans.Changes result, though it also incidentally exposes it as part of the JSON plan result in order to keep that working without returning errors in these new cases. We'll expose this information in the human-oriented UI output in a subsequent commit.	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	329585d07d	jsonconfig: properly unwind and enumerate references (#28884) ... The "references" included in the expression representation now properly unwrap for each traversal step, to match what was documented.	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