Skip to content

[DNM/WIP] PSS: multistage provider download experiment #37350

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
wants to merge 39 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

SarahFrench
Copy link
Member

WIP

Target Release

1.14.x

Rollback Plan

  • If a change needs to be reverted, we will roll out an update to the code within 7 days.

Changes to Security Controls

Are there any changes to security controls (access controls, encryption, logging) in this pull request? If so, explain.

CHANGELOG entry

  • This change is user-facing and I added a changelog entry.
  • This change is not user-facing.

@SarahFrench SarahFrench added the no-changelog-needed Add this to your PR if the change does not require a changelog entry label Jul 18, 2025
Base automatically changed from pss/multistage-provider-download-prep to main July 30, 2025 18:11
@SarahFrench SarahFrench force-pushed the pss/multistage-provider-download-experiment branch from 35e5fd6 to e4e4587 Compare July 31, 2025 10:00
At this point we're unable to download the providers only described by state
This isn't accurate after previous reordering!
…ion as input for getting providers. Use in experimental init and append values to existing deps lock file
…t of attempting to update the lockfile, keep record of incomplete providers inside init command struct
…ocks and merge those with any locks on file. This allows re-use of providers downloaded by `getProvidersFromConfig` in the same init command
…provider download step.

When downloading providers described only in the state then the provider may already be downloaded from a previous init (i.e. is recorded in the deps lock file) or downloaded during step 1 of provider download. The message here needs to cover both potential scenarios.
@SarahFrench
Copy link
Member Author

SarahFrench commented Aug 8, 2025

TestInit_stateStoreBlockIsExperimental is passing when run in isolation, but is failing when run in parallel to other tests. Looking into why that's the case...

Edit: it's due to the modification of the package level terraformBlockSchema variable. 🤦🏻 - this is fine for gating the feature for real users, but means test can interfere with each other.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
no-changelog-needed Add this to your PR if the change does not require a changelog entry
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant