Terraform Required Version Series Of Numbers
Terraform1.1.0-alpha20210908. Terraform was about to solve the issue of provisioning complicated infrastructure – bringing together worlds of multiple cloud providers – ranging from multi-purpose giants like AWS to one-solution providers like Logentries.Terraform Versions HashiCorp Releases./. Version numbers should be a series of numbers separated by periods (like1.2.0), optionally with a suffix to indicBack in 2015, when I first found out about Terraform, it looked like a Valhalla to me. Each condition consists of an operator and a version number. A version constraint is a string literalcontaining one or more conditions, which are separated by commas. Terraforms syntax for version constraints is very similar to the syntax used byother dependency management systems like Bundler and NPM.
Terraform1.0.6.Therefore, do not place an upper limit on the requiredversion like >0.12.26 or > 0.13, < 0.15. Terraform1.1.0-alpha20210616. Terraform1.1.0-alpha20210630. Terraform1.1.0-alpha20210714. Terraform1.1.0-alpha20210728.
We wanted to have something that would let us realize the idea of Infrastructure as a Code – a must for a DevOps enabled team. For a platform based on Heroku and AWS, scaled horizontally to four clones Terraform seemed like a perfect solution. We recommend not commingling state in the same bucket.Terraform reports incompatible version pointing at the last 'terraform.requiredversion' line, even if it is a previous line which is the unmatched constraint 25833Together with my team we decided, that we need something to deal with the infrastructure complexity we have. Use encrypted S3 bucket with versioning, encryption and strict IAM policies.
I personally consider two issues that it brings: The evil stateFirst thing you will complain about, when it comes to Terraform, is the fact that it’s stateful, and the implications it brings. In the end, I will try to convince you that even with those challenges, there is a lot of room for Terraform in the tooling space.
reading the state from providers (state syncing, also called refreshing), can be quite time-consuming. Having that, Terraform can give you a couple of advantages: It’s there to maintain the mapping between the resources represented in your definition files and the actual resources created within cloud providers. you have to keep the state somewhere – and this has to be a secure location as state has to carry secretsBut there is a reason why the state was introduced into Terraform. No stack modifications can be made outside of the provisioning tool
Terraform Required Version Full Of Complaints
Hard to start with the existing stackBack in the early days of Terraform, its issue tracker was full of complaints from people not being able to leverage Terraform with the existing stack. That means that we can assure that while we are applying changes no-one else does.I think when considering provisioning tool you should weigh up above arguments and make sure if your stack is more of a clean-sheet kinda thing, that can be recreated every time you change something, or is it rather a living organism that requires modifications while it’s still running. when it comes to state, Terraform requires it to be locked before applying the changes. having ability to follow the resources that already have been created, we can easier apply renames and restructuring modifications – simply an infrastructure refactoring
This however would require Terraform to treat resources not as a flatland of resources, but as a tree. When you think about it, it would be nice to import such things in a bit more smart way. Without some nifty automation/scripting, it could be really time consuming and frustrating. Fortunately, the import command was introduced, and this problem has been solved (at least at the system level).But here comes another issue that is tightly connected to this – if your stack is large you are doomed to issue terraform import command multiple times for each resource, that is already there.
If you run apply again, you will end up in resource recreation, which is probably not something You always want. Such changes are unfortunately hard for Terraform to follow, and leave it in a state where it doesn’t know that certain resources are simply misplaced. While constantly refactoring your infrastructure definition, you may end up renaming resources (changing their identifiers) or moving them deeper into modules. Complicated state modificationsThere is one additional thing that is a bit problematic when dealing with the state.
For example to define a resource that is conditionally provisioned you make the resource to be a list, and use the count parameter to control it:When above thing is defined in the module, you get a sweet message saying: value of 'count' cannot be computed… It’s really annoying – especially when you read the explanation of Hashicorp saying that you can always use -target switch to initialize resources one after another :(. On the other hand, the conditional logic provided by Terraform is a bit tricky. To be perfectly honest I don’t share that opinion – I think the provisioning definition of the stack should be as declarative as it can – that leaves a lot less space for some deviations in the definitions. Tricky conditional logicThere are some people around the web who doesn’t like the fact that Terraform is not really an actual imperative programming language. The bad news is that in most of the cases you will need a lot of those.
Use a private git repository, and pretend that everything is okay, as long as no one’s computer is stolen 😉 Similar to Vault you can use KMS from AWS to store secrets – but it carries the same complexity luggage The Hashicorp’s blessed way of doing the thing is to use their Vault – while this could be the way to go, it complicates the whole setup even more and feels a little bit like an overkill There are a couple of ways of dealing with that:
So what should I (You) do?As it’s quite visible, Terraform carries some issues that have to be taken into account while choosing a provisioning solution. What might be considered an issue is the fact that using Enterprise mode, leaves our provisioning a bit vendor locked-in. But – assuming it’s the same feel stripped from rather problematic issues of dealing with state and sensitive data – I hope for the best. Unfortunately, I have no experience with this, so can’t tell for sure, how it looks. The secrets holding part), there was a niche that had to be fulfilled, and finally – it was, by Terraform Enterprise.
Additionally, if your case is a living system, with a lot of infrastructure repetitions that undergoes minimal infrastructure changes every day – Terraform is definitely worth taking a look. It’s really hard to find a solution ranging over so many cloud providers. As promised in the title, I should give one major point why should have to consider Terraform – in my opinion, there are cases where you simply have no other options.
0 kommentar(er)
