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

Use the apparentlymart/go-versions library to parse module constraints #32377

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Dec 14, 2022

Conversation

liamcervante
Copy link
Member

Update the module constraint checking logic to use the apparentlymart/go-versions library instead of the hashicorp/go-versions library. This copies the logic of the provider installer which relies entirely on the apparentlymart implementation.

A further PR could look into completely stripping out the old version with the new version for all version processing (not just constraint checking). This is a lot of work though, so this PR could be viewed as a first step in that direction, or maybe we should decide that we should fix this only with a bigger migration and I can close this PR?

Fixes #32356

Target Release

1.3.6

Draft CHANGELOG entry

BUG FIXES

  • Fix exact version constraint parsing for modules using prerelease versions.

Copy link
Contributor

@apparentlymart apparentlymart left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I left some notes about details inline, but overall this seems reasonable to me.

Did you find that there wasn't a good place to add tests for this? I must admit I don't recall what the module installer's testing approach is since it's some quite old code at this point, but I hope there's at least something somewhere testing that it's possible to install a prerelease version using an exact match without any operator and so would've hoped we could add a similar test alongside that which uses the = operator to get the same effect.

Comment on lines 409 to 411
// We validated the version string previously, so we are quite sure
// that MustParseVersion will not crash/panic.
if !acceptableVersions.Has(versions.MustParseVersion(v.String())) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure if it's 100% safe to assume that successful parsing with hashicorp/go-version guarantees successful parsing with apparentlymart/versions. For example: I believe go-version allows a string like 1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0 (any number of numeric segments) if using its main version parser, although not if using its NewSemver function.

If we have been allowing non-semver-syntax version numbers then I suppose this could represent a compatibility regression, so I hope we haven't but I cannot guarantee it off the top of my head. Would probably be worth some testing with some of the examples from the New tests and the NewSemver tests to get a sense of what is and isn't currently accepted by our module installer, and whether all of those inputs are valid per apparentlymart/go-versions.

(If go-versions is rejecting any that seems like valid semver syntax then I would consider that to be a bug, but go-version was originally more general than semver and that would be out of scope for apparentlymart/go-versions, which is focused on the semver sense of version numbers in particular.)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've added a global comment discussing testing more generally. In this case specifically, it checks if the version is parseable now and writes a log message if not.

// that MustParseVersion will not crash/panic.
if !acceptableVersions.Has(versions.MustParseVersion(v.String())) {
log.Printf("[TRACE] ModuleInstaller: %s ignoring %s because it is a pre-release and was not requested exactly", key, v)
continue
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's interesting to note that this effectively means that any prerelease versions announced by the registry will be subject to apparentlymart/go-versions matching before we get to the req.VersionConstraints.Check(v) call below.

I don't think this is actually a problem -- this is still more general than the direct string comparison it is replacing -- but might be worth a comment noting this in the hope of minimizing confusion for a future maintainer here?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've added additional comments, expanding on the context. Hopefully it's more clear now 😅

Comment on lines 399 to 400
// This shouldn't really happen, as we validated the constraints
// string earlier. Let's return a nice error message anyway.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

While I agree that this should be okay, it is possible in principle that versions.MeetingConstraintsString is stricter in some cases than the hashicorp/go-versions parser.

Given that for now we're just trying to use apparentlymart/go-versions only as an extra filter for prereleases and not fully embrace it, I wonder if we should instead make this a log.Printf with [WARN] so that a regular user will never see any messaging in this case.

I think it should be safe to assume that any version constraint that represents just an exact version selection should always pass versions.MeetingConstraintsString, and so it seems pragmatic to assume that if we get any errors here then it's not just an exact match and therefore shouldn't select a prerelease.

(Note that v is under the control of the module registry rather than the user, so a user with a version constraint that is somehow valid for hashicorp/go-version but not for apparentlymart/go-versions would see this warning just because the module registry announced at least one prerelease version, regardless of whether they actually intended to use that prerelease version.)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done! Changed the tfdiags for a warning log message.

Copy link
Member Author

@liamcervante liamcervante left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So all the tests in this package are essentially acceptance tests, in that they download real modules from the registry.

I was wondering if maybe I could add prerelease tag to terraform-aws-module-installer-acc-test. Then I could add some acceptance tests around that and make use of the existing testing infrastructure.

I don't think I can add simple unit tests for this easily though. It's all embedded inside the function that is pulling from the actual registry. I'd have to go through and add mocks for the registry etc. Does this functionality exist elsewhere?

Thoughts?

// that MustParseVersion will not crash/panic.
if !acceptableVersions.Has(versions.MustParseVersion(v.String())) {
log.Printf("[TRACE] ModuleInstaller: %s ignoring %s because it is a pre-release and was not requested exactly", key, v)
continue
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've added additional comments, expanding on the context. Hopefully it's more clear now 😅

Comment on lines 409 to 411
// We validated the version string previously, so we are quite sure
// that MustParseVersion will not crash/panic.
if !acceptableVersions.Has(versions.MustParseVersion(v.String())) {
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've added a global comment discussing testing more generally. In this case specifically, it checks if the version is parseable now and writes a log message if not.

Comment on lines 399 to 400
// This shouldn't really happen, as we validated the constraints
// string earlier. Let's return a nice error message anyway.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done! Changed the tfdiags for a warning log message.

Copy link
Contributor

@apparentlymart apparentlymart left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Great!

That other repository you mentioned seems to exist purely to support the testing if three module installer here, so it seems reasonable to me to add a prerelease tag to it. I suppose the trick will be in whether the public registry webhooks for that repository are still working after all this time so that the registry will see the new tag being created and make it visible through the registry API, but just trying it seems like the easiest way to find out!

Making the prerelease tag match the current HEAD seems plausible since that should be enough to make something valid to install.

@liamcervante liamcervante added the 1.3-backport If you add this label to a PR before merging, backport-assistant will open a new PR once merged label Dec 14, 2022
@liamcervante liamcervante merged commit 6af6540 into main Dec 14, 2022
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

Reminder for the merging maintainer: if this is a user-visible change, please update the changelog on the appropriate release branch.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

I'm going to lock this pull request because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active contributions.
If you have found a problem that seems related to this change, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 14, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
1.3-backport If you add this label to a PR before merging, backport-assistant will open a new PR once merged
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

when requesting an exact prerelease version, the = operator cannot be used
2 participants