3 Commits (96e8bd0c3e8a2340944cf0affdf006b1acbcbae9)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Martin Atkins	fe7e6f970e	command/jsonplan: Include new-style check results in JSON plan output ... This is a new-shaped representation of check results which follows the two-tiered structure of static objects and dynamic instances of objects, thereby allowing consumers to see which checkable objects exist in the configuration even if a dynamic evaluation error prevented actually expanding them all to determine their declared instances. Eventually we'll include this in the state too, but this initially adds it only to the plan in order to replace the now-deprecated experimental conditions result that was present but undocumented in Terraform v1.2.	4 years ago
Martin Atkins	9e4861adbb	states: Two-level representation of check results ... A significant goal of the design changes around checks in earlier commits (with the introduction of package "checks") was to allow us to differentiate between a configuration object that we didn't expand at all due to an upstream error, which has _unknown_ check status, and a configuration object that expanded to zero dynamic objects, which therefore has a _passing_ check status. However, our initial lowering of checks.State into states.CheckResults stayed with the older model of just recording each leaf check in isolation, without any tracking of the containers. This commit therefore lightly reworks our representation of check results in the state and plan with two main goals: - The results are grouped by the static configuration object they came from, and we capture an aggregate status for each of those so that we can differentiate an unknown aggregate result from a passing aggregate result which has zero dynamic associated objects. - The granularity of results is whole checkable objects rather than individual checks, because checkable objects have durable addresses between runs, but individual checks for an object are more of a syntactic convenience to make it easier for module authors to declare many independent conditions that each have their own error messages. Since v1.2 exposed some details of our checks model into the JSON plan output there are some unanswered questions here about how we can shift to reporting in the two-level heirarchy described above. For now I've preserved structural compatibility but not semantic compatibility: any parser that was written against that format should still function but will now see fewer results. We'll revisit this in a later commit and consider other structures and what to do about our compatibility constraint on the v1.2 structure. Otherwise though, this is an internal-only change which preserves all of the existing main behaviors of conditions as before, and just gets us ready to build user-facing features in terms of this new structure.	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