terraform/internal/stacks/stackruntime/internal/stackeval

Terraform Stacks Runtime Internal Architecture

This directory contains the guts of the Terraform Stacks language runtime. The public API to this is in the package two levels above this one, called stackruntime.

The following documentation is aimed at future maintainers of the code in this package. There is no end-user documentation here.

Overview

If you're arriving here familiar with the runtime of the traditional Terraform language used for modules -- which we'll call the "modules runtime" in the remainder of this document -- you will find that things work quite differently in here.

The modules runtime works by first explicitly building a dependency graph and then performing a concurrent walk of that graph, visiting each node and asking it to "evaluate" itself. "Evaluate" could mean something as simple as just tweaking some in-memory data, or it could involve a time-consuming call to a provider plugin. The nodes all collaborate via a shared mutable data structure called EvalContext, which nodes use both to read from and modify the state, plan, and other relavant metadata during evaluation.

The stacks runtime is solving broadly the same problem -- scheduling the execution of various calculations and side-effects into an appropriate order -- but does so in a different way that relies on an implicit data flow graph constructed dynamically during evaluation.

The evaluator does still have a sort of global "god object" that everything belongs to, which is an instance of type Main. However, in this runtime that object is the entry point to a tree of other objects that each encapsulate the data only for a particular concept within the language, with data flowing between them using method calls and return values.

Config objects vs. Dynamic Objects

There are various pairs of types in this package that represent a static object in the configuration and dynamic instances of that object respectively.

For example, InputVariableConfig directly represents a variable block from a .tfstack.hcl file, while InputVariable represents the possibly-many dynamic instances of that object that can be caused by being within a stack that was called using for_each.

In general, the static types are responsible for "static validation"-type tasks, such as checking whether expressions refer to instances of other configuration objects where the configuration object itself doesn't even exist, let alone any instances of it. The goal is to perform as many checks as possible as static checks, because that allows us to give feedback about detected problems as early as possible (during the validation phase), and also avoids redundantly reporting errors for these problems multiple times when there are multiple instances of the same problematic object.

Dynamic types are therefore responsible for everything that needs to respond to dynamic expression evaluation, and anything which involves interacting with external systems. For example, creating a plan for a component must be dynamic because it involves asking providers to perform planning operations that might contact external servers over the network, and then anything which makes use of the results from planning is itself a dynamic operation, transitively.

Calls vs. Instances

A subset of the object types in this package have an additional distinction aside from Config vs. Dynamic.

StackCall, Component, and Provider all represent dynamic instances of objects in the configuration that can themselves produce dynamic child objects. StackCallInstance, ComponentInstance, and ProviderInstance represent those specific instances.

What all of these types have in common is that the configuration constructs they represent each support a for_each argument for dynamically declaring zero or more instances of the object.

The breakdown of responsibilities for this process has three parts. We'll use components for the sake of example here, but the same breakdown applies to stack calls and provider configurations too:

• ComponentConfig represents the actual component block in the configuration, and is responsible for verifying that the component declaration is even valid regardless of any dynamic information.

• Component represents a dynamic instance of one of those component blocks, in the context of a particular stack. This deals with the situation where a component is itself inside a child stack that was called using a stack block which had for_each set, and therefore there are multiple instances of this component block even before we deal with the component block's own for_each argument.

  The Component type is responsible for evaluating the for_each expression.

  The Component type is also responsible for producing the value that would be placed in scope to handle a reference like component.foo, which it does by collecting up the results from each instance implied by the for_each expression and returning them as a mapping.

• ComponentInstance represents just one of the instances produced by the component block's own for_each expression.

  This type is therefore responsible for evaluating any of the arguments that are permitted to refer to each.key or each.value and could therefore vary between instances. It's also responsible for the main dynamic behavior of components, which is creating plans, applying them, and reporting their results.

Object Singletons

Almost everything reachable from a Main object must be treated as a singleton, because these objects contain the tracking information for asynchronous work in progress and the results of previously-completed asynchronous work.

The guarantee of ensuring that each object is indeed treated as a singleton is the responsiblity of some other object which we consider the child to be contained within.

For example, the Main object itself is responsible for instantiating the Stack object representing the main stack (aka the "root" stack) and then remembering it so it can return the same object on future requests. However, any child stacks are tracked inside the state of the root stack object, and so the root stack is responsible for ensuring the uniqueness of those across multiple calls. This continues down the tree, with every object except the Main object being the responsibility of exactly one managing parent.

Failing to preserve this guarantee would cause duplicate work and potentially inconsistent results, assuming that the work in question does not behave as a pure function. To help future maintainers preserve the guarantee, there is a convention that new instances of all of the model types in this package are produced using an unexported function, such as newStack, and that each of those functions must be called only from one other place within the managing parent of each type.

(Stacks themselves are a slight exception to this rule because the managing parent of the main stack is Main while the managing parent of all other stacks is the parent Stack. There must therefore be two callsites for newStack, but they are written in such a way as to avoid trampling on each other's responsibilities.)

The actual singleton objects are retained in an unexported map inside the managing parent. They are typically created only on first request from some other caller, via a method of the managing parent. The resulting new object is then saved in the map to be returned on future calls.

Instances of the ...Config types should typically be singleton per Main object, because they are static by definition.

Instances of dynamic types are actually only singleton per evaluation phase, since e.g. the behavior of a ComponentInstance is different when we're trying to create a plan than when we are trying to apply a plan previously created. More on that in the next section.

Evaluation Phases

Each Main object is typically instantiated for only one evaluation phase, which from the external caller's perspective is controlled by which of the factory functions they call.

Internally we track evaluation phases as instances of EvalPhase, which is a comparable type that we use internally to differentiate between the singletons created for one phase and the singletons created for another.

Since currently each Main has only one evaluation phase, this is actually technically redundant: a Main instantiated for planning would produce only objects for the PlanPhase phase.

However, the implementation nonetheless tracks a separate pool of singletons per phase and requires any operation that performs expression evaluation to explicitly say which evaluation phase it's for, as some insurance both against bugs that might otherwise be quite hard to track down and against possible future needs that might call for us needing to blend work for multiple phases into the same Main object for some reason.

• NewForValidating returns a Main for ValidatePhase, which is capable only of static validation and will fail any dynamic evaluation work.

• NewForPlanning returns a Main for PlanPhase, bound to a particular prior state and planning options.

• NewForApplying returns a Main for ApplyPhase, bound to a particular stack plan, which itself includes the usual stuff like the prior state, the planned changes, input variable values that were specified during planning, etc.

• NewForInspecting returns a Main for InspectPhase, which is a special phase that is intended for implementing less-commonly-used utilities such as something equivalent to terraform console but for Stacks. In this case, the evaluator is bound only to a prior state, and just returns values directly from that state without trying to plan or apply any changes.

  This phase is also handy for unit testing of parts of the runtime that don't rely on external side-effects; many of the unit tests in this package do their work in InspectPhase, particularly if testing an object whose direct behavior does not vary based on the evaluation phase. It's still important to test in other phases for operations whose behavior varies by phase, of course!

Expression Evaluation

The most important cross-cutting behavior in the language runtime is the evaluation of user-provided expressions. The main function for that is EvalExpr, but there's also EvalBody for evaluating all of the expressions in a dynamic body at once, and extensions such as EvalExprAndEvalContext which also returns some of the information that was used during evaluation so that callers can produce more helpful diagnostic messages.

The actual evaluation process involves two important concepts:

• EvaluationScope is an interface implemented by objects that can have expressions evaluated inside them. Each Stack is effectively a "global scope", and then some child objects like Component, StackCall, and Provider act as child scopes which extend the global scope with local context like each.key, each.value, and self.

  An evaluation scope's responsibility is to translate a stackaddrs.Reference (a representation of an already-decoded reference expression) into an object that implements Referenceable.

• Referenceable is an interface implemented by objects that can be referred to in expressions. For example, a reference expression like var.foo should refer to an InputVariable object, and so InputVariable implements Referenceable to decide the actual value to use for that reference.

  The responsibility of an implementation of this interface is simply to return a cty.Value to insert into the expression scope for a particular EvalPhase. For example, a Component object implements this interface by returning an object containing all of the output values from the component's plan when asked for PlanPhase, but returns the output values from the final state instead when asked for ApplyPhase.

Overall then, the expression evaluation process has the following main steps:

1. Analyze the expression or collection of expressions to find all of the HCL symbol references (hcl.Traversal values).

2. Use stackaddrs.ParseReference to try to raise the reference into one of the higher-level address types, wrapped in a stackaddrs.Reference.

   We fail at this step for syntactically-invalid references, but this step has no access to the dynamic symbol table so it cannot catch references to objects that don't exist.

3. Pass the stackaddrs.Reference value to the caller's selected EvaluationScope implementation, which checks whether the address refers to an object that's actually declared, and if so returns that object. This uses EvaluationScope.ResolveExpressionReference.

   This step fails if the reference is syntactically valid but refers to something that isn't actually declared.

   Objects that expressions can refer to must implement Referenceable.

4. Call ExprReferenceValue on each of the collected Referenceable objects, passing the caller's EvalPhase.

   That method must then return a cty.Value. If something has gone wrong upstream that prevents returning a concrete value, the method should return some kind of unknown value -- ideally with a type constraint, but as cty.DynamicVal as a last resort -- so that evaluation can continue downstream just enough to let the call stacks all unwind and collect all the error diagnostics up at the top.

5. Assemble all of the collected values into a suitably-shaped hcl.EvalContext, attach the usual repertiore of available functions, and finally ask the original expression to evaluate itself in that evaluation context.

   Failures can occur here if the expression itself is invalid in some way, such as trying to add together values that cannot convert to number, or other similar kinds of type/value expectation mismatch.

Checked vs. Unchecked Results

Data flow between objects in a particular evaluator happens mostly on request.

For example, if a component block contains a reference to var.foo then as part of evaluating that expression the Component or ComponentInstance object will (indirectly, through the expression evaluator) ask the InputVariable object for variable "foo" to produce its value, and only at that point will the InputVariable object begin the work of evaluating that value, which could involve evaluating yet another expression, and so on.

Because the flow of requests between objects is dynamic, and because many different requesters can potentially ask for the same result via different call paths, if an error or warning diagnostic is returned we need to make sure that propagates by only one return path to avoid returning the same diagnostic message multiple times.

To deal with that problem, operations that can return diagnostics are typically split into two methods. One of them has a Check prefix, indicating that it is responsible for propagating any diagnostics, and the other lacks the prefix.

For example, InputVariable has both Value and CheckValue. The latter returns (cty.Value, tfdiags.Diagnostics), while the former just wraps the latter and discards the diagnostics completely.

This strategy assumes two important invariants:

• Every fallible operation can produce some kind of inert placeholder result when it fails, which we can use to unwind everything else that's depending on the result without producing any new errors. (or, in some cases, producing a minimal amount of additional errors that each add more information than the original one did, as a last resort when the ideal isn't possible).
• Only one codepath is responsible for calling the Check... variant of the function, and everything else will use the unprefixed version and just deal with getting a placeholder result sometimes.

This is quite different than how we've dealt with diagnostics in other parts of Terraform, and does unfortunately require some additional care under future maintenence to preserve those invariants, but following the naming convention across all of the object types will hopefully make these special rules easier to learn and then maintain under future changes.

In practice, the one codepath that calls the Check... variants is the "walk" codepath, which is discussed in the next section.

Static and Dynamic "Walks"

As discussed in the previous section, most results in the stacks runtime are produced only when requested. That means that if no other object in the configuration were to include an expression referring to var.foo, it might never get any opportunity to evaluate itself and raise any errors in its declaration or definition.

To make sure that every relevant object gets visited at least once, each of the main evaluation phases (not InspectPhase) has at least one "walk" associated with it, which navigates the entire tree of relevant objects accessible from the Main object and calls a phase-specific method on each one.

There are two "walk drivers" that arrange for traversing different subsets of the objects:

• The "static" walk is used for both ValidatePhase and PlanPhase, and visits only the objects of Config-suffixed types, representing static configuration objects.
• The "dynamic" walk is used for both PlanPhase and ApplyPhase, and visits both the main dynamic objects (the ones of types with no special suffix) and the objects of Instance-suffixed types that represent dynamic instances of each configuration object.

The "walk driver" decides which objects need to be visited, calling a callback function for each object. Each phase calls a different method of each visited object in its callback:

• ValidatePhase calls the Validate method of interface Validatable, which is only allowed to return diagnostics and should not have any externally-visible side-effects.
• PlanPhase calls the PlanChanges method of interface Plannable, which can return an arbitrary number of "planned change" objects that should be returned to the caller to contribute to the plan, and an arbitrary number of diagnostics.
• ApplyPhase calls the CheckApply method of interface ApplyChecker, which is responsible for collecting the results of apply actions that are actually scheduled elsewhere, since the runtime wants a little more control over the execution of the side-effect heavy apply actions. This returns am arbitrary number of "applied change" objects that each represents a mutation of the state, and an arbitrary number of diagnostics.

Those who are familiar with Terraform's modules runtime might find this "walk" idea roughly analogous to the process of building a graph and then walking it concurrently while preserving dependencies. The stack runtime walks are different in that they are instead walking the tree of objects accessible from Main, and they don't need to be concerned about ordering because the dynamic data flow between the different objects -- where a method of one object can block on the completion of a method of another -- causes a suitable evaluation order automatically.

The scheduling here is dynamic and emerges automatically from the control flow. The runtime achieves this by having any operation that depends on expensive or side-effect-ish work from another object pass the data using the promises and tasks model implemented by package promising.