If a statefile had resources with the same name in different modules,
the sort order could be inconsistent between state refreshes. This adds
the module to the Less() function used in sorting and a minimal test to
verify consistent ordering.
Most of the state package has been deprecated by the states package.
This PR replaces all the references to the old state package that
can be done simply - the low-hanging fruit.
* states: move state.Locker to statemgr
The state.Locker interface was a wrapper around a statemgr.Full, so
moving this was relatively straightforward.
* command: remove unnecessary use of state package for writing local terraform state files
* move state.LocalState into terraform package
state.LocalState is responsible for managing terraform.States, so it
made sense (to me) to move it into the terraform package.
* slight change of heart: move state.LocalState into clistate instead of
terraform
* unlock the state if Context() has an error, exactly as backend/remote does today
* terraform console and terraform import will exit before unlocking state in case of error in Context()
* responsibility for unlocking state in the local backend is pushed down the stack, out of backend.go and into each individual state operation
* add tests confirming that state is not locked after apply and plan
* backend/local: add checks that the state is unlocked after operations
This adds tests to plan, apply and refresh which validate that the state
is unlocked after all operations, regardless of exit status. I've also
added specific tests that force Context() to fail during each operation
to verify that locking behavior specifically.
- Edits to registry overview
- Add index link as 'overview' (header links are semi-invisible)
- move providers/overview.html to providers/index.html
- Edits to providers overview
- fix filename of os-arch
- edits to provider publishing
The validate command should work with the configuration, but when
validate was run at the start of a plan or apply command the state was
inserted in preparation for the next walk. This could lead to errors
when the resource schemas had changes and the state could not be
upgraded or decoded.
* updating `github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go` to `v45.0.0`
* updating `github.com/Azure/go-autorest` to `v0.11.3`
* updating `github.com/hashicorp/go-azure-helpers` to `v0.12.0`
* updating `github.com/tombuildsstuff/giovanni` to `v0.12.0`
While removal of attributes can be handled by providers through the
UpgradeResourceState call, data sources may need to be evaluated before
reading, and they have no upgrade path in the provider protocol.
Strip out extra attributes during state decoding when they are no longer
present in the schema, and there is no schema upgrade pending.
Terraform's design assumes that each remote object in Terraform's care is
bound to one resource instance and one alone. If the same object is bound
to multiple instances then confusing behavior will often result, such as
two resource configurations competing to update a single object, or
objects being "left behind" when all existing Terraform deployments are
destroyed.
This assumption was previously only implied, though. This change is an
attempt to be more explicit about it, although these are additions to some
older documentation sections that have not been revised for some time and
so this is just a best effort to make this information discoverable
without getting drawn into a full-on reorganization of these sections.
While revising this there were some particular oddities that I decided to
revise while I was there, but I'll leave a fuller revision of this older
content for a later commit when we have more time to review it in greater
detail.
* Make sidebar nav in language docs more intuitive
* Minor display fixes for registry docs
* Explain providers in the registry in the providers index
* Revise a bunch of language docs around provider reqs
This is mostly an effort to smooth out some of the explanations, make sure
things are presented in a helpful order, make sure terminology lines up, draw
connections between related concepts, make default behavior more apparent, and
the like. It shouldn't include very much new information, but there might be one
or two things that came out of a conversation somewhere.
Co-authored-by: Judith Malnick <judith@hashicorp.com>
As part of documenting the new module for_each capabilities we added a
section noting that shared modules using the legacy pattern of declaring
their own provider configurations would not be compatible with them.
However, that also applies to the new module depends_on and several folks
participating in the beta pointed out that the documentation wasn't
discussing that at all.
In order to generalize the advice, I've moved the old content we had
(since v0.11) recommending against provider configurations in shared
modules out into its own section, now being more explicit that it is
a legacy pattern and not recommended, and then folded the content about
for_each and count, now also including depends_on, into that expanded
section.
As is often the case, that had some knock-on effects on the content on
the rest of this page, so there's some general editing and reorganization
here. In particular, I moved the "Multiple Instances of a Module" section
much further up the page because it's content relevant to users of
shared modules, while the later content on this page is more aimed at
authors of shared modules, including the new section about the legacy
pattern.
When looking up a resource during plan, we need to return an empty
container type when we're certain there are going to be no instances.
It's now more common to reference resources in a context that needs to
be known during plan (e.g. for_each), and always returning a DynamicVal
her would block plan from succeeding.
The couldHaveUnknownBlockPlaceholder helper was added to detect when a
set block has a placeholder for an unknown number of values. This worked
fine when the number increased from 1, but we were still attempting to
validate the unknown placeholder against the empty set when the final
count turned out to be 0.
Since we can't differentiate the unknown dynamic placeholder value from
an actual set value, we have to skip that object's validation
altogether.
Kristin Laemmert