4 Commits (ba113ff2cd3708d8a0e49df66d649774af5aaa4e)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Martin Atkins	d63871f70d	core: Propagate check results accurately from plan to apply ... In an earlier commit we changed the states.CheckResults model to explicitly model the config object vs. dynamic checkable object hierarchy, but neglected to update the logic in Terraform Core to take that into account when propagating the object expansion decisions from the plan phase to the apply phase. That meant that we were incorrectly classifying zero-instance resources always as having an unknown number of instances, rather than possibly being known to have zero instances. This now follows the two-level heirarchy of the data structure, which has the nice side-effect that we can remove some of the special-case methods from checks.State that we were using to bulk-load data: the data is now shaped in the appropriate way to reload the data using the same method the plan phase would've used to record the results in the first place.	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
Martin Atkins	3785619f93	core: Use the new checks package for condition tracking ... The "checks" package is an expansion what we previously called plans.Conditions to accommodate a new requirement that we be able to track which checks we're expecting to run even if we don't actually get around to running them, which will be helpful when we start using checks as part of our module testing story because test reporting tools appreciate there being a relatively consistent set of test cases from one run to the next. So far this should be essentially a no-op change from an external functionality standpoint, aside from some minor adjustments to how we report some of the error and warning cases from condition evaluation in light of the fact that the "checks" package can now track errors as a different outcome than a failure of a valid check. As is often the case with anything which changes what we track in the EvalContext and persist between plan and apply, Terraform Core is pretty brittle and so this had knock-on effects elsewhere too. Again, the goal is for these changes to not create any material externally-visible difference, and just to accommodate the new assumption that there will always be a "checks" object available for tracking during a graph walk.	4 years ago
Martin Atkins	9dea19807f	checks: A new package for modeling custom condition checks ... The checks.Checks type aims to encapsulate keeping track of check results during a run and then reporting on them afterwards even if the run was aborted early for some reason. The intended model here is that each new run starts with an entirely fresh checks.Checks, with all of the statuses therefore initially unknown, and gradually populates the check results as we walk the graph in Terraform Core. This means that even if we don't complete the run due to an error or due to targeting options we'll still report anything we didn't visit yet as unknown. This commit only includes the modeling of checks in the checks package. For now this is just dead code, and we'll wire it in to Terraform Core in subsequent commits.	4 years ago