PSS: Fix use of reattached providers in init, enable use of reattached providers during plan-apply workflow#38182
Merged
SarahFrench merged 15 commits intomainfrom Feb 18, 2026
Merged
Conversation
…ning to initialise a state store for use in a non-init command. Previously we passed all required providers into backend options to be used within `stateStoreConfig`, which is invoked via (Meta).Backend. The new approach enforces that the provider is present while assembling the backend options passed to (Meta).Backend from (Meta).backend, which is non-init specific. As this code is defending against users running non-init commands before an init, this place feels appropriate and isn't able to impact the init command.
…, and an empty locks file is only bad if there isn't a reattached PSS provider
…s when generating a plan file
… a workflow of init, plan with -out, and apply.
…ing called as the state storage provider isn't the provider used for resource management here
SarahFrench
added
the
no-changelog-needed
…ched providers could cause issues
SarahFrench
commented
Feb 16, 2026
Comment on lines
4822
to
4824
| t.Run("the error isn't shown if the provider is supplied through reattach config", func(t *testing.T) { | ||
| t.Skip("This is implemented as an E2E test: TestPrimary_stateStore_Unmanaged_SeparatePlan") | ||
| }) |
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I could replace this with a code comment but my intention here was to try and create something more eye catching, or something that a person skimming test cases would see more easily.
radeksimko
approved these changes
Feb 17, 2026
| // | ||
| // Remember, the (Meta).backend method is used for non-init commands, so we expect dependency locks | ||
| // to be present or for the provider to be otherwise available, e.g. via reattach config. | ||
| depsDiags := root.StateStore.VerifyDependencySelection(locks, root.ProviderRequirements) |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice, I haven't thought of doing the verification this early in my previous PR! Great to avoid all that plumbing that way. 👍🏻
radeksimko
requested changes
Feb 17, 2026
Member
radeksimko
left a comment
radeksimko
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the wording in the failing test may need updating.
Also you might want to preventatively rebase the PR after the copyright header changes. Otherwise I think the PR is aok and happy to approve.
Member
Author
|
Thanks for taking a look! That test failure should be resolved now - I've enabled auto-merge (and cleaned up the commit details in there 🙈 ) |
radeksimko
approved these changes
Feb 18, 2026
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
Fixes an issue where a reattached provider was no longer able to be used with PSS.
This PR:
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