5 Commits (2edd9f4e10faf38e65d5fc5ce4e29c3c4e3b59b0)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Katy Moe	dc3ed6271c	add failing test for resource type mismatch	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
Martin Atkins	7b99861b1c	refactoring: Don't implicitly move for resources with for_each ... Our previous rule for implicitly moving from IntKey(0) to NoKey would apply that move even when the current resource configuration uses for_each, because we were only considering whether "count" were set. Previously this was relatively harmless because the resource instance in question would end up planned for deletion anyway: neither an IntKey nor a NoKey are valid keys for for_each. Now that we're going to be announcing these moves explicitly in the UI, it would be confusing to see Terraform report that IntKey moved to NoKey in a situation where the config changed from count to for_each, so to address that we'll only generate the implied statement if neither repetition argument is set.	5 years ago
Martin Atkins	ef5a1c9cfe	refactoring: ImpliedMoveStatements function ... This new function complements the existing function FindMoveStatements by potentially generating additional "implied" move statements that aren't written explicit in the configuration but that we'll infer by comparing the configuration and te previous run state. The goal here is to infer only enough to replicate the effect of the "count boundary fixup" graph node (terraform.NodeCountBoundary) that we currently use to deal with this concern of preserving the zero-instance when switching between "count" and not "count". This is just dead code for now. A subsequent commit will introduce this into the "terraform" package while also removing terraform.NodeCountBoundary, thus achieving the same effect as before but in a way that'll get reported in the UI as a move, using the same language that we'd use for an explicit move statement.	5 years ago
Martin Atkins	aa414f3ab3	refactoring: First round of ValidateMoves rules ... This is a first pass at implementing refactoring.ValidateMoves, covering the main validation rules. This is not yet complete. A couple situations not yet covered are represented by commented test cases in TestValidateMoves, although that isn't necessarily comprehensive. We'll do a further pass of filling this out with any other subtleties before we ship this feature.	5 years ago