8 Commits (3d1e07dcf3d7fb4555e2a21af4e69901bdb543d9)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
hashicorp-copywrite[bot]	53c34ff49c	Update copyright file headers to BUSL-1.1	3 years ago
hashicorp-copywrite[bot]	325d18262e	[COMPLIANCE] Add Copyright and License Headers	3 years ago
James Bardin	e761117562	find implied moves in nested modules ... Implied moves in nested modules were being skipped	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
James Bardin	08edb02270	MoveStatement.Name() ... makes the graph printable for debugging	5 years ago
Martin Atkins	3e5bfa7364	refactoring: Stubbing of the logic for handling moves ... This is a whole lot of nothing right now, just stubbing out some control flow that ultimately just leads to TODOs that cause it to do nothing at all. My intent here is to get this cross-cutting skeleton in place and thus make it easier for us to collaborate on adding the meat to it, so that it's more likely we can work on different parts separately and still get a result that tessellates.	5 years ago
Martin Atkins	22eee529e3	addrs: MoveEndpointInModule ... We previously built out addrs.UnifyMoveEndpoints with a different implementation strategy in mind, but that design turns out to not be viable because it forces us to move to AbsMoveable addresses too soon, before we've done the analysis required to identify chained and nested moves. Instead, UnifyMoveEndpoints will return a new type MoveEndpointInModule which conceptually represents a matching pattern which either matches or doesn't match a particular AbsMoveable. It does this by just binding the unified relative address from the MoveEndpoint to the module where it was declared, and thus allows us to distinguish between the part of the module path which applies to any instances of the given modules vs. the user-specified part which must identify particular module instances.	5 years ago