Handle provider meta better in PlanResourceChange

[VenelinMartinov]

fixes #1822 and unlocks pulumi/pulumi-gcp#1874

ProviderMeta seems to be an old experimental feature of TF which has not picked up.

AWS does not use it and GCP uses it only for one thing - setting UserAgent strings: modular-magician/terraform-provider-google-beta@6cf6c51

The meta we receive does not match the schema provided and does not contain the module_name property. We should set it to null and potentially revisit if this causes issues. I've tested it for the GCP resource in #1825 and works fine.

I've opened #1827 as a follow-up to test with one of the resources which actually use the ProviderMeta.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 60.52%. Comparing base (c4bfb05) to head (9bf7d16).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1826      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   61.04%   60.52%   -0.53%     
==========================================
  Files         303      310       +7     
  Lines       42444    42810     +366     
==========================================
  Hits        25911    25911              
- Misses      15065    15431     +366     
  Partials     1468     1468              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[iwahbe]

I don't really understand this change. I think a test of would make it clearer for me.

[VenelinMartinov]

This code would panic on the GCP provider. It is not used in AWS and nothing else uses the PlanResourceChange stuff.

I'd like to use PlanResourceChange in GCP. To do that, I've "fixed" the providerMeta to always return null.

There's a regression test in https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi-terraform-bridge/pull/1825/files but it's failing due to unrelated reasons.

[t0yv0]

Add a test please. Otherwise LGTM. Some of your PR comment may be worth repeating in source.

[t0yv0]

I think p.tf.Meta() and ProvderMetaSchema are just different things right? I remember bumping into this before, it keeps being difficult to remember because they're both named Meta. I must have crossed the wrong wires when writing providerv2 code.

[iwahbe]

I think p.tf.Meta() and ProvderMetaSchema are just different things right? I remember bumping into this before, it keeps being difficult to remember because they're both named Meta. I must have crossed the wrong wires when writing providerv2 code.

I'm pretty sure that they are unrelated. p.tf.Meta() is:

// Meta returns the metadata associated with this provider that was
// returned by the Configure call. It will be nil until Configure is called.
func (p *Provider) Meta() interface{} {
	return p.meta
}

I'm pretty sure that it is provider local and never needs to be serialized. I think ProvderMetaSchema is the schema (at least in theory) for the config that was passed into the provider (the arguments for Configure). @t0yv0 I think the problem is you have the input and output domains confused in func (p *planResourceChangeImpl) providerMeta() (*cty.Value, error).