Hacker News Reader

Comment by tibbon | Hacker News Reader

I concur that provider projects are a mess. When I've reported issues, I've been told "That's not an issue, just do your plan/apply manually in two steps" which is pretty contrary to what you should need to do with Terraform. So many providers github repos have it set to automatically shut down an issue if no one commented on it for 30 days, which means a lot of things that are unaddressed get swept under rugs.

View on HN

> I've been told "That's not an issue, just do your plan/apply manually in two steps" which is pretty contrary to what you should need to do with Terraform.

Is it? I've been contemplating using Terraform for my org, but I would really like a CI system that generates a plan, lets me review it, and then I can approve it and the plan gets applied. Ideally I think this is how I would like all of my infrastructure to work. (It's how I do changes to Kubernetes stuff; generate some resource manifests then apply the files.)

This is supported by Terraform Enterprise deployment policies.

With the Fastly provider, you cannot create and define lifecycle on an ACL at the same time. Trying it will make the plan blow up. So you have to split it into one commit, plan/apply it, and then do another. If you tear down the entire system with a Terraform destroy, and try it from the ground up - it will fail. This makes testing with something like Terratest nearly impossible, as it will require multiple plan/applies in a row to get the environment up - and it's hard to determine what failures are retryable and aren't.

This sounds far from optimal to me.

Their 30-day auto-close policy is ridiculous. I've run into at least half a dozen bugs in Terraform providers, dutifully gone to report them, and found them auto-closed by the bot. How are they ever going to be addressed with that attitude? At least acknowledge that you don't care and aren't going to fix them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com