stacks: handle unknown values in component for_each #35016
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
DanielMSchmidt
force-pushed
the
TF-13963
branch
from
967e996
to
cca4914
Compare
DanielMSchmidt
force-pushed
the
TF-13963
branch
from
cca4914
to
c601fdf
Compare
DanielMSchmidt
force-pushed
the
TF-13963
branch
from
c601fdf
to
c2663f8
Compare
DanielMSchmidt
force-pushed
the
TF-13963
branch
from
4c31b00
to
b105e99
Compare
DanielMSchmidt
force-pushed
the
TF-13963
branch
from
b105e99
to
7d648a1
Compare
DanielMSchmidt
force-pushed
the
TF-13963
branch
from
7d648a1
to
9daebbe
Compare
DanielMSchmidt
force-pushed
the
TF-13963
branch
2 times, most recently
from
b632e98
to
a3be97a
Compare
DanielMSchmidt
force-pushed
the
TF-13963
branch
2 times, most recently
from
82b7d84
to
87f91ae
Compare
DanielMSchmidt
force-pushed
the
TF-13963
branch
from
87f91ae
to
9dc07d1
Compare
DanielMSchmidt
force-pushed
the
TF-13963
branch
from
9dc07d1
to
1a99da2
Compare
internal/stacks/stackruntime/internal/stackeval/component_instance.go
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
DanielMSchmidt
force-pushed
the
TF-13963
branch
from
68fbe21
to
53938e7
Compare
Co-authored-by: Liam Cervante <liam.cervante@hashicorp.com>
DanielMSchmidt
force-pushed
the
TF-13963
branch
from
9b16d01
to
d224414
Compare
…stics So there is no need for checkValid to do this during th walkDynamicObjects phase
DanielMSchmidt
force-pushed
the
TF-13963
branch
from
00de5cd
to
f847360
Compare
nfagerlund
approved these changes
May 1, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Okay, I think I got a solid handle on the moving parts, and this feels good to me! I haven't done interactive testing of it, because as best as I can tell it's not quite enabled all the way through (such that I could load a stack into TFC and give it a drive). But the logic makes sense and the unit tests are convincing.
internal/stacks/stackruntime/internal/stackeval/component_test.go
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
Reminder for the merging maintainer: if this is a user-visible change, please update the changelog on the appropriate release branch. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In case we have an unknown
for_eachvalue in a component we create a component instance with theaddrs.WildcardKeyas the instance key to indicate that the "real" key is not yet known. We use appropriate unknown values for the repetition data so that the component itself can be planned as precise as possible. During the plan we tell terraform through the rpc api that this run in and of itself is deferred already.For reviewers unfamiliar with the stacks runtime: There is (afaik) no explicit graph being created, but it's implicitly generated through the call graph of e.g. looping through component instances. The promising library provides a model roughly similar to JS Promises to allow for an easier mental model for the concurrency involved.
Target Release
1.8.x
Draft CHANGELOG entry
NEW FEATURES