Skip to content
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

Cross-test unknown values #1858

Open
Tracked by #1791 ...
t0yv0 opened this issue Apr 11, 2024 · 1 comment
Open
Tracked by #1791 ...

Cross-test unknown values #1858

t0yv0 opened this issue Apr 11, 2024 · 1 comment
Labels
area/testing The internal testing setup of the bridge kind/engineering Work that is not visible to an external user

Comments

@t0yv0
Copy link
Member

t0yv0 commented Apr 11, 2024

The cross-testing in #1801 is as yet unable to verify handling unknown values. The limitation here is that the drivers
use HCL and Pulumi YAML to feed data into the respective CLIs for an end-to-end test, but there are no literals for
unknown values. To emulate this one would need to emit an additional helper resource reference to simulate an
unknown-at-preview output in the provider.

In addition, it is worth verifying if Block-typed TF schemas can ever accept unknown values at runtime; if not,
randomized generation should not try to sample them probably, and we would need to confirm that Pulumi bridged providers
reject them for blocks.

Tasks

Preview Give feedback
No tasks being tracked yet.
t0yv0 added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 12, 2024
Fixes #1790 by
building a rapid generator for schemas and associated values.

Large-ish problem 1: I do not have it figured out how to test unknown
values. TF literals as unknown values are forbidden and do not make
sense. We might need a helper resource so that testing unknown values
generates references to an output of the helper resource. This is logged
for future work.

Large-ish problem 2: iteration is pretty slow (x-proc). Normal n=100
rapid tests can take up to 10min. Could try batching so several
resources are tried in one shot say 100 resources.

Large-ish problem 3: I'm not sure if no-op Update and Create
implementations are acceptable. There is something to testing Computed
attributes where provider has to set values. Possibly Update also needs
to set values? Possibly not.

Small problems:

- [x] Using TF JSON syntax didn't handle null/empty correctly; that is
now discarded, using actual HCL syntax
- [x] TF representations are difficult to visualize in failing tests and
difficult to assert against
- [x] Lots of lost-in-translation papercuts possible between
representations (cty.Value, resource.PropertyValue, tftypes.Value)
- [x] this requires a change to providertest to abstract from testing.T
so we can pass rapid.T
- [x] it's very hard to disable annoying TF logging, using env vars for
now

We are starting to find bugs and discrepancies from this work:

- #1856 panic
corner-case
- #1852 need to
InternalValidate
- #1828

Future work:

- #1856 
- #1857 
- #1858 
- #1859 
- #1860 
- #1861 
- #1862 
- #1863 
- #1864 
- #1865 
- #1866 
- #1867
@iwahbe iwahbe added kind/engineering Work that is not visible to an external user area/testing The internal testing setup of the bridge labels Apr 17, 2024
@VenelinMartinov
Copy link
Contributor

This might be interesting to investigate once we add unknowns to cross-tests: #2032

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area/testing The internal testing setup of the bridge kind/engineering Work that is not visible to an external user
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants