Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The future of Terraform CDK

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 140 posts

Re: The future of Terraform CDK

#41

Post by jen20 »

packetlost wrote: post #39
vbernat wrote: post #2

It's odd to always say "Hashicorp, an IBM company". Looks like they want to assign blame. I did try Pulumi a while back, but the compatibility with Terraform modules was not great, so I've switched to CDKTF, which can handle unmodified modules. Dunno if I'll switch back to Pulumi or just use OpenTofu directly.

I have absolutely nothing good to say about Pulumi. Stay far, far away.

Strange, I have a lot of good things to say about both it and Terraform.

Probably some specifics might be more useful there...

Re: The future of Terraform CDK

#42

Post by selkin »

vbernat wrote: post #2

It's odd to always say "Hashicorp, an IBM company". Looks like they want to assign blame. I did try Pulumi a while back, but the compatibility with Terraform modules was not great, so I've switched to CDKTF, which can handle unmodified modules. Dunno if I'll switch back to Pulumi or just use OpenTofu directly.

> It's odd to always say "Hashicorp, an IBM company". Looks like they want to assign blame.

Or it's legal trying to preempt a risk.

If it was the author just wanting to point at IBM, they'd mention it just once or twice, but using that awkward phrase throughout the text makes me think it was an edit mandated by a careful lawyer.

Re: The future of Terraform CDK

#43

Post by kbar13 »

we're using cdk since 100% of our stuff is in aws but will soon need to hook up some external resources like cloudflare. looked at tfcdk a while back but didn't think it was a good idea (glad). still trying to figure out a good way forward and hoping it's not to rip the bandaid and migrate everything to terraform / pulumi

Re: The future of Terraform CDK

#44

Post by cube2222 »

lijok wrote: post #38
cube2222 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, as of yesterday’s 1.11 release it’s supported! That also includes a new “enabled” meta argument, so you don’t have to hack around conditional resources with count = 0. [0]: https://opentofu.org/blog/opentofu-1-11-0/ Disclaimer: affiliated with the project

How do you migrate from count/for_each to `enabled` ?

You can just switch from `count = 1` to `enabled = true` (or vice-versa, works back-and-forth) for a resource and tofu will automatically move it next time you apply.

It's pretty seamless.

Re: The future of Terraform CDK

#46

Post by mfornasa »

lillecarl wrote: post #33
mfornasa wrote: post #16

Rug pulls on infrastructure components seem even worse than other rug pulls as they can hit your entire infra codebase at once

This is why infrastructure people are conservative by nature, it's so damn much gruntwork to migrate without downtime

And it happens while we are all very enthusiastically dedicated to migrating off Kubernetes ingress-nginx. Just as planned.

Re: The future of Terraform CDK

#47

Post by tetha »

GardenLetter27 wrote: post #6

Damn, what are the best alternatives here? For pure AWS I guess CDK directly is okay, but locks you in.

Hm, we have a few very repetitive terraform projects to setup structured infrastructure clusters. For those, we just use ansible with a bunch of templating to generate a configurable, HCL-based terraform module and version that.

It's a bit of an "Caveman solve problem with rock" approach, but for very regular projects it's great. A new cluster is some group vars, larger changes to the structures can be easily reviewed - and if you really really have to, you can also just modify the generated code by hand to fix something your generation code can't deal with right now.

Re: The future of Terraform CDK

#48

Post by mfornasa »

packetlost wrote: post #39
vbernat wrote: post #2

It's odd to always say "Hashicorp, an IBM company". Looks like they want to assign blame. I did try Pulumi a while back, but the compatibility with Terraform modules was not great, so I've switched to CDKTF, which can handle unmodified modules. Dunno if I'll switch back to Pulumi or just use OpenTofu directly.

I have absolutely nothing good to say about Pulumi. Stay far, far away.

please expand on this, I am interested (for real!)

Re: The future of Terraform CDK

#49

Post by lijok »

cube2222 wrote: post #44
lijok wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you migrate from count/for_each to `enabled` ?

You can just switch from `count = 1` to `enabled = true` (or vice-versa, works back-and-forth) for a resource and tofu will automatically move it next time you apply. It's pretty seamless.

Amazing. Good work !

Re: The future of Terraform CDK

#50

Post by Pet_Ant »

atonse wrote: post #4
vbernat wrote: post #2

It's odd to always say "Hashicorp, an IBM company". Looks like they want to assign blame. I did try Pulumi a while back, but the compatibility with Terraform modules was not great, so I've switched to CDKTF, which can handle unmodified modules. Dunno if I'll switch back to Pulumi or just use OpenTofu directly.

I was thinking the same thing about the "an IBM company". My guess is that it's a lazy find/replace.

I assume it's a matter of branding and making IBM look more modern by associating with the Hashicorp brand.
Post reply on HN