You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In provider-upjet-aws, there are many resources which use the config.IdentifierFromProvider external name config, which doesn't set any identifier fields. However, many of these resources do have fields which serve as an identifier, in that they are part of the terraform id. It would provide a better user experience to update the external name configuration to construct the terraform id from the parameters, so that users can specify the desired spec and not have to worry about whether crossplane is going to create or update it, as opposed to the current behavior where often (but not always) users have to set the external-name annotation to the right format for that resource Kind, which is generally not documented anywhere.
When opening PRs that make these sorts of improvements to an external name configuration, the result is technically a breaking schema change, because it removes fields from spec.initProvider, and there's (understandably!) resistance to releasing such changes in a normal minor release.
While the terraform schema doesn't provide any specific indication that certain fields are part of the terraform id, it does indicate immutable fields with ForceNew: true (at least in the TF SDKv2 form of the schema), and identifier fields are almost always immutable.
How could Upjet help solve your problem?
If we removed immutable fields from initProvider (based on ForceNew: true), then we would substantially reduce the size of our schemas, and allow external name config improvements to be non-breaking, at the cost of removing a feature it makes no sense to use.
In provider-aws, the result of applying this change locally was a decrease of about 60,000 lines of generated code in the CRDs, and another 40,000 lines in the apis folder.
How can we identify an immutable field?
For schemas defined using the TF SDKv2, there's a ForceNew parameter.
For schemas deserialized to the TF SDKv2 format from terraform-json, as far as I can tell there is no indication of which fields are immutable.
This would be a breaking change. I can think of two ways to release it.
Because it would be very strange for someone to be setting an immutable field in spec.initProvider instead of spec.forProvider, we just make the change, bump the major version of the provider (and probably also upjet), and mention it in the release notes.
Write some kind of generic conversion webhook (or code to generate one?) that migrates fields present in v1beta1.initProvider and missing from v1beta2.initProvider by setting the corresponding value in v1beta2.forProvider I'd really prefer our conversion webhooks to be a bit more mature before we add one to nearly every resource, with issues like Code generation error: Import cycle not allowed #368 and Stability improvements to conversion webhooks #369 addressed.
What problem are you facing?
In provider-upjet-aws, there are many resources which use the
config.IdentifierFromProviderexternal name config, which doesn't set any identifier fields. However, many of these resources do have fields which serve as an identifier, in that they are part of the terraform id. It would provide a better user experience to update the external name configuration to construct the terraform id from the parameters, so that users can specify the desiredspecand not have to worry about whether crossplane is going to create or update it, as opposed to the current behavior where often (but not always) users have to set the external-name annotation to the right format for that resourceKind, which is generally not documented anywhere.When opening PRs that make these sorts of improvements to an external name configuration, the result is technically a breaking schema change, because it removes fields from
spec.initProvider, and there's (understandably!) resistance to releasing such changes in a normal minor release.While the terraform schema doesn't provide any specific indication that certain fields are part of the terraform id, it does indicate immutable fields with
ForceNew: true(at least in the TF SDKv2 form of the schema), and identifier fields are almost always immutable.How could Upjet help solve your problem?
If we removed immutable fields from
initProvider(based onForceNew: true), then we would substantially reduce the size of our schemas, and allow external name config improvements to be non-breaking, at the cost of removing a feature it makes no sense to use.In provider-aws, the result of applying this change locally was a decrease of about 60,000 lines of generated code in the CRDs, and another 40,000 lines in the
apisfolder.How can we identify an immutable field?
For schemas defined using the TF SDKv2, there's a
ForceNewparameter.For schemas deserialized to the TF SDKv2 format from terraform-json, as far as I can tell there is no indication of which fields are immutable.
For Terraform Plugin Framework schemas, there is a
RequiresReplaceplan modifier. See https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws/blob/898c9b5a1d8958366b293dad02daa44e24e360ef/internal/service/cognitoidp/user_pool_client.go#L237-L241 for an example.Breaking change
This would be a breaking change. I can think of two ways to release it.
v1beta1.initProviderand missing fromv1beta2.initProviderby setting the corresponding value inv1beta2.forProviderI'd really prefer our conversion webhooks to be a bit more mature before we add one to nearly every resource, with issues like Code generation error: Import cycle not allowed #368 and Stability improvements to conversion webhooks #369 addressed.