Ensure all sdkv2 test providers have an id and an update method

[VenelinMartinov]

This change tweaks the EnsureProviderIsValid method in pulcheck to always give resources an id property and ensure they pass the TF validation with respect to Update methods.

Previously we'd run into trouble with TF validation when a resource needs an Update and doesn't have one or it doesn't need an Update and has one. The rules are non-trivial so I've opted to just make all resources need an Update and ensure they have one.

[VenelinMartinov]

This change is part of the following stack:

• Expose internal SDKv2 Diff cross-test interface #2720
  • Refactor SDKv2 set detailed diff tests #2721
    • Ensure all sdkv2 test providers have an id and an update method #2723 ◀
      • Add SDKv2 detailed diff set tests for top-level ForceNew #2724
        • Refactor SDKv2 non-set detailed diff tests #2725
          • Add SDKv2 Detailed Diff tests for list replacements #2735
            • Add SDKv2 Detailed Diff tests for lists with many elements #2736
              • Add SDKv2 Detailed Diff tests for Computed properties in sets #2740
                • Refactor SDKv2 set detailed diff tests to correct files #2741

_{Change managed by git-spice.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 69.63%. Comparing base (e04c35f) to head (2e69e46).

Additional details and impacted files

@@                             Coverage Diff                             @@
##           vvm/refactor_sdkv2_set_detailed_diff_tests    #2723   +/-   ##
===========================================================================
  Coverage                                       69.63%   69.63%           
===========================================================================
  Files                                             301      301           
  Lines                                           38725    38725           
===========================================================================
+ Hits                                            26965    26968    +3     
+ Misses                                          10243    10241    -2     
+ Partials                                         1517     1516    -1     

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

[iwahbe]

I'm not sure I understand this change. We believe that resourceNeedsUpdate is wrong, but are still using it?

Where does this cause us problems?

[iwahbe]

Why do we need to add the if !resourceNeedsUpdate(r) { ... } block if we remove the conditional.

[t0yv0]

Sounds like EnsureProviderValid is actually doing something like populating defaults into the resource schemas. Adding update_prop is really non-intuitive to callers, why would it do that?

What if we just inlined and got rid of EnsureProviderValid and made the resource schemas in every test realistic, with comments e.g. if update_prop is added then why it's added?