Support recursive targeting on modules

[uhef]

The purpose of this PR is to fix #5190 and other related issues. A new resource type "module" is introduced and if the targeted resource is a module then instead of targeting only the resources, all resources in the resource hierarchy under the targeted module are targeted.

[CarlInglisBJSS]

We pulled the master and merged the branch, then did some basic, unstructured and informal, testing with a multi-module layered TF configuration. It worked as expected.

[fatmcgav]

@uhef What's the latest on this PR?

If you're happy that it's ready, removing the 'WIP' tag should trigger a review...

[uhef]

Removed the WIP tag.

[fatmcgav]

@stack72 Any chance of a review on this one? :)

[sachincab]

+1

[uhef]

How does the review process unfold? Anything I can help here with anymore or is it up to the maintainers?

[cswilliams]

Hope this can get merged in soon! I really need this fix so I've been compiling my own version using this patch on v0.8.6 for the last week or so. I haven't run into any issues.

[Jaff]

+1 from our team

[dominicbarnes]

I'd really like to see this merged as well, it's causing me huge headaches atm.

[apparentlymart]

Hi all! Thanks for the work here and sorry we let this sit here for so long.

This is a breaking change to the behavior of -target (it makes it match potentially more resources than it did before) so we'll need to wait until a major release to merge this as is our usual policy for breaking changes. Hopefully we can get this reviewed and merged for 0.10.0.

[uhef]

Great news!

Let me know if there's anything I can help you with!

[dcosson]

@apparentlymart any timeline for the 0.10 release? I'm eagerly awaiting this fix, without it -target is just about useless when working with complicated modules and I have to plan my entire environment on every change.

[apparentlymart]

Work on 0.10 is in progress but it's too early for us to have a firm release date. I can empathize with the frustration caused here! We have some other big things we need to get in before we can cut 0.10, though.

[pikeas]

@apparentlymart Can you confirm whether this will definitely make it into 0.10?

[apparentlymart]

@pikeas unfortunately I cannot see the future, so I can't say definitely, but we will have a look at this again once the final 0.9 release has been cut from master and we start to use master for 0.10 integration (not yet scheduled, since we're still doing 0.9 maintenance alongside 0.10 development) and see what work is required to get it merged.

It looks pretty solid from an initial pass of review, so I'm optimistic.

[jemmyw]

@uhef any chance you could fix the merge conflicts? I've been using your patch on top of the 0.8 series, but it does not apply to 0.9

[josephholsten]

@jemmyw care to take a look at #15293? it's just a rebase of this up to master

[apparentlymart]

This was fixed in v0.10.0-beta1, by #15314. Sorry I forgot to close this out until now!

[ghost]

I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues.

If you have found a problem that seems similar to this, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.