-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10.1k
PSS: Add tests showing provider commands being used with PSS
#37959
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Draft
SarahFrench
wants to merge
20
commits into
pss/pss-with-state-commands
Choose a base branch
from
pss/pss-with-provider-commands
base: pss/pss-with-state-commands
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
PSS: Add tests showing provider commands being used with PSS
#37959
SarahFrench
wants to merge
20
commits into
pss/pss-with-state-commands
from
pss/pss-with-provider-commands
+1,259
−23
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
…ing tests where the values in `MockStates` aren't compatible with the `ReadStateBytesFn` default function. Make existing test set an appropriate value in `MockStates`.
…h pluggable state storage code.
…h pluggable state storage code.
…h pluggable state storage code.
…on with pluggable state storage code.
…pluggable state storage code.
…pluggable state storage code.
…h pluggable state storage code.
…egration with pluggable state storage code.
…mand under test. This test fixure is reused across tests that need the config to define a state store but otherwise rely on the mock provider to set up the test scenario.
The internal/command/testdata/state-commands-state-store and internal/command/testdata/state-store-unchanged test fixtures are the same.
…using grpcwrap package This was removed, incorrectly, in #37899
…ers` command Note: I've excluded the `terraform providers locks` and `terraform providers mirror` commands as they don't interact with backends.
… `providers` command
… `providers schema` command
bb7d519 to
c2d9c42
Compare
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.
Following #37569, this PR demonstrates that the
providercommands -that interact with backends- work when pluggable state storage is in use.The E2E tests rely on a test fixture resembling a fully initialised working directory, including some local state describing an instance of the terraform_data resource. That state is inspected by the commands in the tests.
The integration tests use an existing test fixture because some state_store config needs to be present for the test, but the state present in tests is contained within the mock provider definition.
Target Release
1.15.x
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