PSS: Let the init command recognise when there are no changes in configuration.
#37777
+747
−96
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 backend state (i.e. no changes)
…iltin and re-attached providers. This makes comparison easier when determining if config has changed since last init.
…d state_store config changes being tested
…a change, but handling this scenario isn't implemented yet
Previously dummy values were fine, but as tests using hashes to identify changes these values need to be accurate!
…der version as described in the backend state file fixture for the test.
…as a change, but handling this scenario isn't implemented yet
…ation in the same provider is detected as a change, but handling this scenario isn't implemented yet
…as a change, but handling this scenario isn't implemented yet
…ut handling this scenario isn't implemented yet
Just to avoid any confusion if copy-pasting happens in future.
…ull, and replace dummy hash values with correct values.
…ce would already exist in this scenario
…no-op for backend state
…& update test to not expect a value for region attr in provider config
SarahFrench
commented
Oct 15, 2025
Comment on lines
+961
to
+966
| if s.StateStore.Provider.Source.Equals(stateStoreConfig.ProviderAddr) && | ||
| s.StateStore.Provider.Version.Equal(pVersion) && | ||
| (uint64(stateStoreProviderHash) == s.StateStore.Provider.Hash) && | ||
| s.StateStore.Type == stateStoreConfig.Type && | ||
| (uint64(stateStoreHash) == s.StateStore.Hash) && | ||
| (!opts.Init || opts.ConfigOverride == nil) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is pretty dense, though is carrying-forward how the equivalent block is handled for backends.
I imagine that any refactoring here would inform how the rest of this case block is implemented. Would it be ok to save that for a subsequent PR(s)?
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 allows the experimental PSS version of
initlogic recognise when there have been no changes since the last init, so init will perform a no-op (in regards to state storage, at least).I've added a test showing that init is a no-op in those circumstances :
TestInit_stateStore_configUnchangedI've also added tests showing that when backend state and config don't match we hit a
not configured yeterror diagnostic - seeTestInit_stateStore_configChanges. To do this I've created sets of test fixtures where the backend state file and config are not in agreement. A special case of this, upgraded provider versions, is inTestInit_stateStore_providerUpgrade.Changes covered:
internal/command/testdata/state-store-changed/store-configinternal/command/testdata/state-store-changed/provider-configinternal/command/testdata/state-store-changed/state-store-typeinternal/command/testdata/state-store-changed/provider-usedinternal/command/testdata/state-store-changed/provider-upgradedTarget 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