13 Commits (3c8a4e6e05afefb7639bf30efa852cf59f14ade6)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Kristin Laemmert	8c2abbc0f0	return the properly-typed nulls, instead of empty containers, in proposedNewNestedType	5 years ago
Kristin Laemmert	77af601543	plans/objchange: extended ProposedNewObject to descend into attributes ... with NestedType objects. There are a handful of mostly cosmetic changes in this PR which likely make the diff awkward to read; I renamed several functions to (hopefully) clarifiy which funcs worked with Blocks vs other types. I also extracted some small code snippets into their own functions for reusability. The code that descends into attributes with NestedTypes is similar to the block-handling code, and differs in all the ways blocks and attributes differ: null is valid for attributes, unlike blocks which can only be present or empty.	5 years ago
Kristin Laemmert	da6ac9d6cd	plans/objchange: add handling of NestedTypes inside attributes ... - rename ProposedNewObject to ProposedNew: Now that there is an actual configschema.Object it will be clearer if the function names match the type the act upon. - extract attribute-handling logic from assertPlanValid and extend A new function, assertPlannedAttrsValid, takes the existing functionality and extends it to validate attributes with NestedTypes. The NestedType-specific handling is in assertPlannedObjectValid, which is very similar to the block-handling logic, except that nulls are a valid plan (an attribute can be null, but not a block).	5 years ago
James Bardin	77af322c1c	handle non-null, but empty NestingMap in a set	6 years ago
James Bardin	f128b8c4fa	take dynamic types into account when comparing set ... If a NestingList or NestingMap contains a dynamic type, they must be handled as a cty.Tuple and cty.Object respectively, because the elements may not have precisely matching types.	6 years ago
Alexander Ovechkin	d7db008df2	added empty list test case	6 years ago
Alexander Ovechkin	8fbb4d0163	Converting ListVal to ListVal instead of TupleVal in setElementCompareValue	6 years ago
James Bardin	e50be82da4	don't add empty blocks in ProposedNewObject ... If the config contained a null block, don't convert it to a block with empty values for the proposed new value.	7 years ago
Martin Atkins	c794bf5bcc	plans/objchange: Don't presume unknown for values unset in config ... Previously we would construct a proposed new state with unknown values in place of any not-set-in-config computed attributes, trying to save the provider a little work in specifying that itself. Unfortunately that turns out to be problematic because it conflates two concerns: attributes can be explicitly set in configuration to an unknown value, in which case the final result of that unknown overrides any default value the provider might normally populate. In other words, this allows the provider to recognize in the proposed new state the difference between an Optional+Computed attribute being set to unknown in the config vs not being set in the config at all. The provider now has the responsibility to replace these proposed null values with unknown values during PlanResourceChange if it expects to select a value during the apply step. It may also populate a known value if the final result can be predicted at plan time, as is the case for constant defaults specified in the provider code. This change comes from a realization that from core's perspective the helper/schema ideas of zero values, explicit default values, and customizediff tweaks are all just examples of "defaults", and by allowing the provider to see during plan whether these attributes are being explicitly set in configuration and thus decide whether the default will be provided immediately during plan or deferred until apply.	7 years ago
Martin Atkins	9b4b43c077	plans/objchange: Don't panic when a prior value with a set is null ... ProposedNewObject intentionally replaces a null prior with an unknown prior in order to easily fill in unknown values where they "show through" under values not set explicitly in config, but it was failing to handle that situation when dealing with nested blocks that are backed by sets.	8 years ago
Martin Atkins	3f8a973846	plans/objchange: when prior is null, computed attributes are unknown	8 years ago
Martin Atkins	549544f201	configschema: Handle nested blocks containing dynamic-typed attributes ... We need to make the collection itself be a tuple or object rather than list or map in this case, since otherwise all of the elements of the collection are constrained to be of the same type and that isn't the intent of a provider indicating that it accepts any type.	8 years ago
Martin Atkins	0317da9911	plans/objchange: logic for merging prior state with config ... This produces a "proposed new state", which already has prior computed values propagated into it (since that behavior is standard for all resource types) but could be customized further by the provider to make the "_planned_ new state". In the process of implementing this it became clear that our configschema DecoderSpec behavior is incorrect, since it's producing list values for NestingList and map values for NestingMap. While that seems like it should be right, we should actually be using tuple and object types respectively to allow each block to have a different runtime type in situations where an attribute is given the type cty.DynamicPseudoType. That's not fixed here, and so without a further fix list and map blocks will panic here. The DecoderSpec implementation will be fixed in a subsequent commit.	8 years ago