PSS: Allow pluggable state store configuration to be stored in a plan file #37956
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
This helps with navigating ambiguity around the word backend. The new name should indicate that the value represents a `backend` block, not a more general interpretation of what a backend is.
…to a lack of data. Don't change it if pluggable state storage is in use.
…sing that data when creating a plan file.
…ly isn't valid for `stateStoreConfigState` to be nil I'm about 90% sure that backendConfigState being nil is ok <_<
… file with the expected state_store configuration data
SarahFrench
added
the
no-changelog-needed
3 tasks
radeksimko
reviewed
Dec 8, 2025
Member
radeksimko
left a comment
radeksimko
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some questions about edge cases in-line.
Co-authored-by: Radek Simko <[email protected]>
…d.Backend` is encountered when managing a state store
…backend config state to downstream logic. In future this should be simplified, either via refactoring or changes affecting the implied local backend
radeksimko
previously approved these changes
Dec 10, 2025
Contributor
|
The equivalence tests failed. Please investigate here. |
Contributor
|
The equivalence tests failed. Please investigate here. |
SarahFrench
force-pushed
the
pss/state-store-in-plan-file
branch
from
177d034 to
a52e51b
Compare
Member
Author
|
I accidentally pushed commits here exploring how to better handle the synthetic object (#37984) - I've just force pushed to remove those last 2 commits |
3 tasks
radeksimko
approved these changes
Dec 11, 2025
3 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Context
The process of how data gets into a planfile created by a
plancommand is a little convoluted, so here is a diagram attempting to explain how it works. Note that the diagram explains how it works after the changes of this PR, so describes parallel backend- and state store-related fields in places, but broadly the sequence of events is unchanged.This PR
Follows after #37246, which began implementing use of pluggable state stores with planfiles.
planand use that in anapplycommand:plan: d0f8834stateStoreConfigStatePlanOutStateStorefield with a description of the state store's config.PlanOutStateStorefield can be used when writing the plan fileThis PR adds some test coverage of the new features in integration tests. There are no E2E tests in this PR and instead the stacked PR #37957 includes an E2E test that shows the full init-plan-apply workflow performed with a pluggable state store.
Target Release
1.15.x
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