Project: OpenTofu (Provisioning / Automation & Configuration)
File: planning-behaviors.md

A key design tenet for OpenTofu is that any actions with externally-visible side-effects should be carried out via the standard process of creating a plan and then applying it. Any new features should typically fit within this model. There are also some historical exceptions to this rule, which we hope to supplement with plan-and-apply-based equivalents over time. This document describes the default planning behavior of OpenTofu in the absence of any special instructions, and also describes the three main design approaches we can choose from when modelling non-default behaviors that require additional information from outside OpenTofu Core. This document focuses primarily on actions relating to resource instances, because that is OpenTofu's main concern. However, these design principles can potentially generalize to other externally-visible objects, if we can describe their behaviors in a way comparable to the resource instance behaviors. This is developer-oriented documentation rather than user-oriented documentation. See for information on existing planning behaviors and other behaviors as viewed from an end-user perspective. When given no explicit information to the contrary, OpenTofu Core will automatically propose taking the following actions in the appropriate situations: Create, if either of the following are true: There is a `resource` block in the configuration that has no corresponding managed resource in the prior state. There is a `resource` block in the configuration that is recorded in the prior state but whose `count` or `for_each` argument (or lack thereof) describes an instance key that is not tracked in the prior state. Delete, if either of the following are true: There is a managed resource tracked in the prior state which has no corresponding `resource` block in the configuration. There is a managed resource tracked in the prior state which has a corresponding `resource` block in the configuration but its `count` or `for_each` argument (or lack thereof) lacks an instance key that is tracked in the prior state. Update, if there is a corresponding resource instance both declared in the configuration (in a `resource` block) and recorded in the prior state (unless it's marked as "tainted") but there are differences between the prior state and the configuration which the corresponding provider doesn't explicitly classify as just being normalization. Replace, if there is a corresponding resource instance both declared in the configuration (in a `resource` block) and recorded in the prior state marked as "tainted". The special "tainted" status means that the process of creating the object failed partway through and so the existing object does not necessarily match the configuration, so OpenTofu plans to replace it in order to ensure that the resulting object is complete. Read, if there is a `data` block in the configuration. If possible, OpenTofu will eagerly perform this action during the planning phase, rather than waiting until the apply phase. If the configuration contains at least one unknown value, or if the data resource directly depends on a managed resource that has any change proposed elsewhere in the plan, OpenTofu will instead delay this action to the apply phase so that it can react to the completion of modification actions on other objects. No-op, to explicitly represent that OpenTofu considered a particular resource instance but concluded that no action was required. The Replace action described above is really a sort of "meta-action", which OpenTofu expands into separate Create and Delete operations. There are two possible orderings, and the first one is the default planning behavior unless overridden by a special planning behavior as described

The two possible lowerings of Replace are: Delete then Create: first delete the existing object bound to an instance, and then create a new object at the same address based on the current configuration. Create then Delete: mark the existing object bound to an instance as "deposed" (still exists but not current), create a new current object at the same address based on the current configuration, and then delete the deposed object. For the sake of this document, a "special" planning behavior is one where OpenTofu Core will select a different action than the defaults above, based on explicit instructions given either by a module author, an operator, or a provider. There are broadly three different design patterns for special planning behaviors, and so each "special" use-case will typically be met by one or more of the following depending on which stakeholder is activating the behavior: are activated by additional annotations given in the source code of a module. This design pattern is good for situations where the behavior relates to a particular module and so should be activated for anyone using that module. These behaviors are therefore specified by the module author, such that any caller of the module will automatically benefit with no additional work. are activated by optional fields in a provider's response when asked to help plan one of the default actions given above. This design pattern is good for situations where the behavior relates to the behavior of the remote system that a provider is wrapping, and so from the perspective of a user of the provider the behavior should appear "automatic". Because these special behaviors are activated by values in the provider's response to the planning request from OpenTofu Core, behaviors of this sort will typically represent "tweaks" to or variants of the default planning behaviors, rather than entirely different behaviors. are activated by explicitly setting additional "plan options" when calling OpenTofu Core's plan operation. This design pattern is good for situations where the direct operator of OpenTofu needs to do something exceptional or one-off, such as when the configuration is correct but the real system has become degraded or damaged in a way that OpenTofu cannot automatically understand. However, this design pattern has the disadvantage that each new single-run behavior type requires custom work in every wrapping UI or automaton around OpenTofu Core, in order provide the user of that wrapper some way to directly activate the special option, or to offer an "escape hatch" to use OpenTofu CLI directly and bypass the wrapping automation for a particular change. We've also encountered use-cases that seem to call for a hybrid between these different patterns. For example, a configuration construct might cause OpenTofu Core to invite a provider to activate a special behavior, but let the provider make the final call about whether to do it. Or conversely, a provider might advertise the possibility of a special behavior but require the user to specify something in the configuration to activate it. The above are just broad categories to help us think through potential designs; some problems will require more creative combinations of these patterns than others. Within the space of configuration-driven behaviors, we've encountered two main sub-categories: Resource-specific behaviors, whose effect is scoped to a particular resource. The configuration for these often lives inside the `resource` or `data` block that declares the resource. Global behaviors, whose effect can span across more than one resource and sometimes between resources in different modules. The configuration for these often lives in a separate location in a module, such as a separate top-level block which refers to other resources using the typical address

The following is a non-exhaustive list of existing examples of configuration-driven behaviors, selected to illustrate some different variations that might be useful inspiration for new designs: The `ignore_changes` argument inside `resource` block `lifecycle` blocks tells OpenTofu that if there is an existing object bound to a particular resource instance address then OpenTofu should ignore the configured value for a particular argument and use the corresponding value from the prior state instead. This can therefore potentially cause what would've been an Update to be a No-op instead. The `replacetriggeredby` argument inside `resource` block `lifecycle` blocks can use a proposed change elsewhere in a module to force OpenTofu to propose one of the two Replace variants for a particular resource. The `createbeforedestroy` argument inside `resource` block `lifecycle` blocks only takes effect if a particular resource instance has a proposed Replace action. If not set or set to `false`, OpenTofu will decompose it to Destroy then Create, but if set to `true` OpenTofu will use the inverted ordering. Because OpenTofu Core will never select a Replace action automatically by itself, this is an example of a hybrid design where the config-driven `createbeforedestroy` combines with any other behavior (config-driven or otherwise) that might cause Replace to customize exactly what that Replace will mean. Top-level `moved` blocks in a module activate a special behavior during the planning phase, where OpenTofu will first try to change the bindings of existing objects in the prior state to attach to new addresses before running the normal planning process. This therefore allows a module author to document certain kinds of refactoring so that OpenTofu can update the state automatically once users upgrade to a new version of the module. This special behavior is interesting because it doesn't directly change what actions OpenTofu will propose, but instead it adds an extra preparation step before the typical planning process which changes the addresses that the planning process will consider. It can therefore indirectly cause different proposed actions for affected resource instances, such as transforming what by default might've been a Delete of one instance and a Create of another into just a No-op or Update of the second instance. This one is an example of a "global behavior", because at minimum it affects two resource instance addresses and, if working with whole resource or whole module addresses, can potentially affect a large number of resource instances all at once. Providers get an opportunity to activate some special behaviors for a particular resource instance when they respond to the `PlanResourceChange` function of the provider plugin protocol. When OpenTofu Core executes this RPC, it has already selected between Create, Delete, or Update actions for the particular resource instance, and so the special behaviors a provider may activate will typically serve as modifiers or tweaks to that base action, and will not allow the provider to select another base action altogether. The provider wire protocol does not talk about the action types explicitly, and instead only implies them via other content of the request and response, with OpenTofu Core making the final decision about how to react to that information. The following is a non-exhaustive list of existing examples of provider-driven behaviors, selected to illustrate some different variations that might be useful inspiration for new designs: When the base action is Update, a provider may optionally return one or more paths to attributes which have changes that the provider cannot implement as an in-place update due to limitations of the remote

In that case, OpenTofu Core will replace the Update action with one of the two Replace variants, which means that from the provider's perspective the apply phase will really be two separate calls for the decomposed Create and Delete actions (in either order), rather than Update directly. When the base action is Update, a provider may optionally return a proposed new object where one or more of the arguments has its value set to what was in the prior state rather than what was set in the configuration. This represents any situation where a remote system supports multiple different serializations of the same value that are all equivalent, and so changing from one to another doesn't represent a real change in the remote system. If all of those taken together causes the new object to match the prior state, OpenTofu Core will treat the update as a No-op instead. Of the three genres of special behaviors, provider-driven behaviors is the one we've made the least use of historically but one that seems to have a lot of opportunities for future exploration. Provider-driven behaviors can often be ideal because their effects appear as if they are built in to OpenTofu so that "it just works", with OpenTofu automatically deciding and explaining what needs to happen and why, without any special effort on the user's part. OpenTofu Core's "plan" operation takes a set of arguments that we collectively call "plan options", that can modify OpenTofu's planning behavior on a per-run basis without any configuration changes or special provider behaviors. As noted above, this particular genre of designs is the most burdensome to implement because any wrapping software that can ask OpenTofu Core to create a plan must ideally offer some way to set all of the available planning options, or else some part of OpenTofu's functionality won't be available to anyone using that wrapper. However, we've seen various situations where single-run behaviors really are the most appropriate way to handle a particular use-case, because the need for the behavior originates in some process happening outside of the scope of any particular OpenTofu module or provider. The following is a non-exhaustive list of existing examples of single-run behaviors, selected to illustrate some different variations that might be useful inspiration for new designs: The "replace" planning option specifies zero or more resource instance addresses. For any resource instance specified, OpenTofu Core will transform any Update or No-op action for that instance into one of the Replace actions, thereby allowing an operator to respond to something having become degraded in a way that OpenTofu and providers cannot automatically detect and force OpenTofu to replace that object with a new one that will hopefully function correctly. The "refresh only" planning mode ("planning mode" is a single planning option that selects between a few mutually-exclusive behaviors) forces OpenTofu to treat every resource instance as No-op, regardless of what is bound to that address in state or present in the configuration. Some of the legacy operations OpenTofu CLI offers that aren't integrated with the plan and apply flow could be thought of as various degenerate kinds of single-run behaviors. Most don't offer any opportunity to preview an effect before applying it, but do meet a similar set of use-cases where an operator needs to take some action to respond to changes to the context OpenTofu is in rather than to the OpenTofu configuration itself. Most of these legacy operations could therefore most readily be translated to single-run behaviors, but before doing so it's worth researching whether people are using them as a workaround for missing configuration-driven and/or provider-driven