PSS: Validate the backend or state store configurations described by plan files #37948
+1,554
−142
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
SarahFrench
added
the
no-changelog-needed
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
SarahFrench
force-pushed
the
pss/update-how-operations-use-backend-config-state
branch
from
94d4233 to
9a018e9
Compare
3 tasks
SarahFrench
force-pushed
the
pss/update-how-operations-use-backend-config-state
branch
from
9a018e9 to
d16ebe6
Compare
SarahFrench
force-pushed
the
pss/validate-backend-state-store-config-in-plans
branch
from
b44b360 to
c6922ef
Compare
SarahFrench
force-pushed
the
pss/update-how-operations-use-backend-config-state
branch
from
d16ebe6 to
f795158
Compare
This helps with navigating ambiguity around the word backend. The new name should indicate that the value represents a `backend` block, not a more general interpretation of what a backend is.
…to a lack of data. Don't change it if pluggable state storage is in use.
…sing that data when creating a plan file.
…ly isn't valid for `stateStoreConfigState` to be nil I'm about 90% sure that backendConfigState being nil is ok <_<
… file with the expected state_store configuration data
…ng it to prepare a Local backend that uses the state store
…an file to configure and use a state store
…e full init-plan-apply workflow
…quired providers, if PSS is in use. See the code comment added in this commit. This addition does not impact an apply command as the missing provider will be detected before this code is executed. However I'm making this change so that the method is still accurate is being able to return a complete list of providers needed by the plan.
…or state store config when getting a backend from a planfile
…Backend, so the planfile's Backend struct isn't flagged as empty.
… the Backend config are set
…f a backend or state store is complete The alternative approach would be to change the existing `Backend` field in the `Plan` struct to be a pointer. I'm open to either option, but the approach of using an `Empty` method matches existing work in the `workdir` package when inspecting the backend state file, and that seems a similar use-case to inspecting the plan file.
…e store is complete when reading or writing a plan file
SarahFrench
force-pushed
the
pss/validate-backend-state-store-config-in-plans
branch
from
c6922ef to
e3f20b8
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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.
This PR is blocked by review of #37946, #37956, and #37957
Follows #37248
This PR adds validation to stop Terraform writing or using a planfile that has incomplete descriptions of the backend or state store configuration.
Target Release
N/A
Rollback Plan
Changes to Security Controls
Are there any changes to security controls (access controls, encryption, logging) in this pull request? If so, explain.
CHANGELOG entry