[Internal][Draft] Plugin Framework Rollout

[edwardfeng-db]

Changes

• Made it possible to use environment variable USE_SDK_V2 to control rollout
• Bumped resource and data source names from staging names to production names (can debate on whether we want to do that now or in a more gradual fashion)
• Proposed mechanism: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zfTp8YesMe4GxkbIt9Sbwd5nQL7Y4mXed8dPDGmAoxU/edit?tab=t.0

Tests

• make test run locally
• relevant change in docs/ folder
• covered with integration tests in internal/acceptance
• relevant acceptance tests are passing
• using Go SDK

[edwardfeng-db]

Debatable decision - do we want to have more fine grained control such that we can use different environment variable values to control specific resources / data sources?

[tanmay-db]

As discussed, mentioning for visibility -- it would be better to have more finer grained control per resource so people can pass the resources they want to use sdkv2 for individually as otherwise they would have to use sdkv2 for all resources if there is a bug in one resource.

[mgyucht]

Overall, approach seems fine. It's a bit strange to have the SDKv2 implementation depend on the pluginfw one, but I think that's an OK direction (the other way around would be problematic).

Can we make sure to update the documentation for each of these migrated resources with instructions for customers to fall-back to the original implementation?

Also, let's split migrated and non-migrated resources, since non-migrated resources should not be possible to roll-back to the original implementation.

[mgyucht]

This was not migrated IIUC. It should only exist in the plugin framework.

[mgyucht]

Instead of hard-coding the names here, we can get them by calling the Metadata() method for each resource/data source.