This is to make it more obvious at all uses of this field that it's not
something to be used for anything other than UI decisions, hopefully
prompting a reader of code elsewhere to refer to the comments to
understand why it has this unusual prefix and thus see what its intended
purpose is.
This only includes the internal mechanisms to make it work, and not any
of the necessary UI changes to "terraform plan" and "terraform apply" to
activate it yet.
The force-replace options are ultimately handled inside the
NodeAbstractResourceInstance.plan method, at the same place we handle the
similar situation of the provider indicating that replacement is needed,
and so the rest of the changes here are just to propagate the settings
through all of the layers in order to reach that point.
Previously we were repeating some logic in the UI layer in order to
recover relevant additional context about a change to report to a user.
In order to help keep things consistent, and to have a clearer path for
adding more such things in the future, here we capture this user-facing
idea of an "action reason" within the plan model, and then use that
directly in order to decide how to describe the change to the user.
For the moment the "tainted" situation is the only one that gets a special
message, matching what we had before, but we can expand on this in future
in order to give better feedback about the other replace situations too.
This also preemptively includes the "replacing by request" reason, which
is currently not reachable but will be used in the near future as part of
implementing the -replace=... plan command line option to allow forcing
a particular object to be replaced.
So far we don't have any special reasons for anything other than replacing,
which makes sense because replacing is the only one that is in a sense
a special case of another action (Update), but this could expand to
other kinds of reasons in the future, such as explaining which of the
few different reasons a data source read might be deferred until the
apply step.
The stored planfile now serializes the required-replace path set and the
collection of before/after sensitivity marks. This ensures that storing
a plan and displaying it with `terraform show` renders the same output
for plans with required-replace resources, and those with sensitive
values in the diff.
Since protoc is not go-gettable, and most development tasks in Terraform
won't involve recompiling protoc files anyway, we'll use a separate
mechanism for these.
This way "go generate" only depends on things we can "go get" in the
"make tools" target.
In a later commit we should also in some way specify a particular version
of protoc to use so that we don't get "flapping" regenerations as
developers work with different versions, but the priority here is just to
make "make generate" minimally usable again to restore the dev workflow
documented in the README.
This also includes some updates that resulted from running "make generate"
and "make protobuf" after those Makefile changes were in place.
Previously we used a single plan action "Replace" to represent both the
destroy-before-create and the create-before-destroy variants of replacing.
However, this forces the apply graph builder to jump through a lot of
hoops to figure out which nodes need it forced on and rebuild parts of
the graph to represent that.
If we instead decide between these two cases at plan time, the actual
determination of it is more straightforward because each resource is
represented by only one node in the plan graph, and then we can ensure
we put the right nodes in the graph during DiffTransformer and thus avoid
the logic for dealing with deposed instances being spread across various
different transformers and node types.
As a nice side-effect, this also allows us to show the difference between
destroy-then-create and create-then-destroy in the rendered diff in the
CLI, although this change doesn't fully implement that yet.
This allows a provider to retain arbitrary extra data in the plan and
make use of it during apply. The contents are not used by Terraform and
never shown to the user.
We shouldn't really need these because the plan is already filtered to
include diffs only for targeted resources, but we currently rely on this
to filter out non-resource items from the diff, and so we'll retain it
for now to avoid reworking how the apply-time graph builder works.
On the first pass here we erroneously assumed that this was redundant with
the backend settings embedded in the configuration itself. In practice,
users can override backend configuration when running "terraform init"
and so we need to record the _effective_ backend configuration.
Along with this, we also return the selected workspace name at the time
the plan was created so we'll later be able to produce a specialized error
for the situation of having the wrong workspace selected. This isn't
strictly required because we'll also check the lineage of the state, but
the error message that would result from that failure would be relatively
opaque and thus less helpful to the user.
This allows us to record the resource-to-provider associations we made
during the plan phase and ensure that we use the same config during
apply.
This isn't technically necessary, since we can in principle just repeat
the same matching algorithm against the config, but that algorithm is
relatively complicated and so if we execute it just once during plan we
remove the risk of bugs causing different decisions to be made during
the apply phase.
This also includes updates to the plan file format to include the provider
addresses. Since we've not actually shipped any version of Terraform
using our protobuf schema yet, we renumber here all of the fields after
the new one to keep them incrementing consecutively. This example should
not be followed after we have a released version of Terraform using this,
as a courtesy to anyone trying to parse these files (even though we're
not yet guaranteeing compatibility between releases).
The new format is radically different in than the old in physical
structure, but still has the same logical parts: the plan itself, a
snapshot of the input configuration, and a snapshot of the state as it
existed when the plan was created.
Rather than creating plan-specific serializations of state and config, the
new format instead leans on the existing file formats implemented
elsewhere, wrapping the result up in a zip archive with some internal file
naming conventions.
The plan portion of the file is serialized with protobuf, consistent with
our general strategy of replacing all use of encoding/gob with protobuf
moving forward.
Martin Atkins