20 Commits (580d3afb34633ee558b54a5604ca89fd032ca2ee)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Liam Cervante	bb73fb1d69	stacks: don't validate input variables during the apply phase (#35561)	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	5939efb798	stacks: add depends_on for embedded stacks and components (#35549)	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	38033b5c45	stacks: sort diags in test before comparison (#35550)	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	46393f2a92	stacks: apply automatic type conversion before comparing inputs (#35530) ... * stacks: apply automatic type conversion before comparing inputs * correct error message for missing ephemeral value during apply	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	0c67edd598	stacks: ensure input values for components don't change between plan and apply (#35489) ... * stacks: ensure input values for components don't change between plan and apply * skip ephemeral values	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	87bbc47737	stacks: include plan mode in stacks plan format (#35405) ... * stacks: include plan mode in stacks plan format * fix tests * fix missed files	2 years ago
Alisdair McDiarmid	d828776757	stacks+rpcapi: Load prior state and plan separately ... Previously we expected clients to provide an inline raw prior state to PlanStackChanges and an inline raw plan to ApplyStackChanges, which was a simpler design but meant that we might end up generating a state or plan that's too large to be submitted in a single gRPC request, which would then be difficult to resolve. Instead we'll offer separate RPC functions for loading raw state and plan using a gRPC streaming approach, which better mirrors the streaming approach we use to _emit_ these artifacts. Although we don't actually need this benefit right now, this makes it possible in principle for a client that's running PlanStackChanges to feed back the raw planned actions concurrently into OpenPlan and thus avoid buffering the whole plan on the client side at all. This required resolving the pre-existing FIXME about the inconsistency where stackeval wants a raw plan for apply but expects the caller to have dealt with loading the prior state for planning. Here it's resolved in the direction of the caller (rpcapi) always being responsible for loading both artifacts, because that means we can continue supporting the old inline approach for a while without that complexity having to infect the lower layers. Ideally we should remove the legacy approach before this API becomes constrained by compatibility promises, but I've preserved the old API for now to give us some flexibility in when we update the existing clients of this API to use the new approach. Co-authored-by: Martin Atkins <mart@degeneration.co.uk>	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	3ecf7655ba	stacks: insert unknown values for missing outputs during applies (#35463) ... * stacks: insert unknown values for missing outputs during apply operations * fix tests	2 years ago
Daniel Schmidt	1d45d12f40	stacks: track resource deferrals in apply	2 years ago
Daniel Schmidt	4f401d9cd3	stacks: add dependency lock to new test case	2 years ago
Daniel Schmidt	9f8ab0450c	stacks: fix move apply test	2 years ago
Daniel Schmidt	05755422f3	stacks: pass dependency lock in tests	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	587a7e88ff	stacks: include move, forget, import counts in apply summaries (#35391)	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	27f26bd1b5	stacks: emit specific moved notification during apply (#35387)	2 years ago
Daniel Schmidt	b62a67394b	stacks: save plantimestamp to plan	2 years ago
Martin Atkins	30e2fd6525	Handle marks a little more consistently ... In the very first implementation of "sensitive values" we were unfortunately not disciplined about separating the idea of "marked value" from the idea of "sensitive value" (where the latter is a subset of the former). The first implementation just assumed that any marking whatsoever meant "sensitive". We later improved that by adding the marks package and the marks.Sensitive value to standardize on the representation of "sensitive value" as being a value marked with _that specific mark_. However, we did not perform a thorough review of all of the mark-handling codepaths to make sure they all agreed on that definition. In particular, the state and plan models were both designed as if they supported arbitrary marks but then in practice marks other than marks.Sensitive would be handled in various inconsistent ways: dropped entirely, or interpreted as if marks.Sensitive, and possibly do so inconsistently when a value is used only in memory vs. round-tripped through a wire/file format. The goal of this commit is to resolve those oddities so that there are now two possible situations: - General mark handling: some codepaths genuinely handle marks generically, by transporting them from input value to output value in a way consistent with how cty itself deals with marks. This is the ideal case because it means we can add new marks in future and assume these codepaths will handle them correctly without any further modifications. - Sensitive-only mark preservation: the codepaths that interact with our wire protocols and file formats typically have only specialized support for sensitive values in particular, and lack support for any other marks. Those codepaths are now subject to a new rule where they must return an error if asked to deal with any other mark, so that if we introduce new marks in future we'll be forced either to define how we'll avoid those markings reaching the file/wire formats or extend the file/wire formats to support the new marks. Some new helper functions in package marks are intended to standardize how we deal with the "sensitive values only" situations, in the hope that this will make it easier to keep things consistent as the codebase evolves in future. In practice the modules runtime only ever uses marks.Sensitive as a mark today, so all of these checks are effectively covering "should never happen" cases. The only other mark Terraform uses is an implementation detail of "terraform console" and does not interact with any of the codepaths that only support sensitive values in particular.	2 years ago
CJ Horton	5a750561e6	round-trip check results through stack plans ... Components expect that check results will be round-tripped through the plan in order to update unknown check results during the apply. We hadn't wired this up for stack plans, resulting in panics when the apply tries to update a check status that doesn't exist.	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	2472f7c773	stacks: fix flaky tests (#34708)	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	64b311d53a	stacks: apply sensitive marks to outputs from components (#34684) ... * stacks: apply sensitive marks to outputs from components * gen headers * ensure consistent test ordering	2 years ago
Liam Cervante	07f6621091	stacks: include resources in state when calculating required providers (#34645) ... * stacks: include resources in state when calculating required providers * also support apply time * add copywrite headers	2 years ago