configs: fix module for_each call bug

[kmoe]

This fixes a bug introduced in #30639 in which initialising a module will fail if that module contains both a provider block and a module call using for_each.

This bug was introduced in https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform/pull/30639/files#diff-95e614048e1ba4ba7621e22ba67cfe5c8acd386e5540b8c92c267d2fd1b3d31eR31-R55 by removing a variable scoped to a for loop (var nope) and instead overwriting noProviderConfigRange. This meant that the error at https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform/pull/30639/files#diff-95e614048e1ba4ba7621e22ba67cfe5c8acd386e5540b8c92c267d2fd1b3d31eR181 would be triggered if the parent module contained a provider block, not the child.

Fixes #31081

Test case

There are no tests in code for this behaviour. Highly recommend adding them as follow up. I manually tested this using the example below, kindly provided by @knbnnate.

.
├── barren_child
│   └── main.tf
├── grandchild
│   └── main.tf
└── main.tf

main.tf

provider "azurerm" {
  features {
  }
}
terraform {
  backend "local" {
  }
  required_providers {
    azurerm = {
      source  = "hashicorp/azurerm"
      version = "~> 2.99"
    }
  }
}


module "child" {
  source = "./barren_child"
}

barren_child/main.tf

provider "azurerm" {
  alias           = "other"
  subscription_id = var.some_other_sub
  features {
  }
}

module "grandchild" {
  for_each = toset(["bar","baz"])
  source = "../grandchild"
}

grandchild/main.tf

variable "text" {
  type = string
  default = "foo"
  description = "stuff"
}
resource "local_file" "foo" {
  filename = "/dev/null"
  content = jsonencode(var.text)
}

[apparentlymart]

This looks good to me! I also tested it with some reconstructions of some test cases I was using when I originally worked on the other PR, just to satisfy myself that I remembered enough about what was going on here to understand why this change makes sense.

I have also started preparing a regression test case for this, but it ended up more annoying to integrate than I expected due to it being a concern that ends up crossing packages. If I get that working well I'll send it in as a separate PR so that we can get this landed sooner.

Thanks for diving in to this!

[github-actions]

Reminder for the merging maintainer: if this is a user-visible change, please update the changelog on the appropriate release branch.

[github-actions]

I'm going to lock this pull request because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active contributions.
If you have found a problem that seems related to this change, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.