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

Infrastructure Manager: Provision Google Cloud Resources with Terraform

cloud.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 70 posts

Re: Infrastructure Manager: Provision Google Cloud Resources with Terraform

#21

Post by kevindamm »

emptysongglass wrote: post #13
pm90 wrote: post #3

Wonder if they have to pay licensing fees to hashicorp for using terraform this way. It’s essentially replacing terraform cloud for GCP resources.

Which is why it's all the more puzzling Google didn't spring for OpenTF here. They single-handedly could have proven it as the fork of choice but instead they're paying into HashiCorp's bad decision?

Probably because development was already well under way several months ago.

But I agree, explicit support for OpenTF here would have been really nice to see, even if it delayed launch a little.

Re: Infrastructure Manager: Provision Google Cloud Resources with Terraform

#25

Post by cassianoleal »

mkl95 wrote: post #18

Is there anything particularly painful about working with the Google Cloud Terraform provider? If there isn't, I would rather use OpenTF with that provider and manage state myself.

No, it's fine. It works about as well as any other Terraform provider out there.

Every tool I've seen that wraps Terraform in any way is just a solution looking for a problem.

Re: Infrastructure Manager: Provision Google Cloud Resources with Terraform

#26

Post by abatilo »

mkl95 wrote: post #18

Is there anything particularly painful about working with the Google Cloud Terraform provider? If there isn't, I would rather use OpenTF with that provider and manage state myself.

In my experience, running a plan is much less likely to catch a bad value than the AWS provider.

Subjectively, the AWS provider will at least validate that fields have valid values during the plan step. The Google provider doesn't seem to validate actual values until apply, and then you get a failure

Re: Infrastructure Manager: Provision Google Cloud Resources with Terraform

#28

Post by scarface_74 »

As someone who doesn’t have any experience with GCP. But I do have experience with AWS, I would have thought this would already be a thing.

I know AWS doesn’t have managed TF support - and as a former AWS ProServe employee i know that they thought about it but didn’t do it because they didn’t want to step on Hashicorp’s business.

AWS does have its own hosted IAC service that was introduced before TF was a thing with CloudFormation.

Re: Infrastructure Manager: Provision Google Cloud Resources with Terraform

#29

Post by diarrhea »

abatilo wrote: post #26
mkl95 wrote: post #18

Is there anything particularly painful about working with the Google Cloud Terraform provider? If there isn't, I would rather use OpenTF with that provider and manage state myself.

In my experience, running a plan is much less likely to catch a bad value than the AWS provider. Subjectively, the AWS provider will at least validate that fields have valid values during the plan step. The Google provider doesn't seem to validate actual values until apply, and then you get a failure

I can’t help but feel… sad about this. I only recently picked up Terraform and am astounded that this is what goes as coding in the infrastructure world. I was coming from Ansible so there was only improvement to be had, but man did Terraform let me down so far.

It (well, the provider) doesn’t validate fields until apply. That’s just so… sad. How is that acceptable? It’s like a car without a steering wheel, and people just go along with it.

Re: Infrastructure Manager: Provision Google Cloud Resources with Terraform

#30

Post by scarface_74 »

anyoneamous wrote: post #7
klooney wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't used Cloudformation in three years, how's it doing these days?

I see a roughly even split of people using CFn, Terraform and (Python) CDK. AWS shot themselves in the foot by making the Python version of CDK second-tier after Typescript; IaC is still done by DevOps people far more often than application people, and DevOps people use Python. Another gripe is the number of services and new features which launch without CFn support, which also blocks CDK support; when Terraform supp…

Every version of the CDK uses an interop layer and runs on top of the Typescript version

https://github.com/aws/jsii

And as far as TF supports services before CFT. Guess which is easier for an AWS employee to do - getting the CF service team to support a new service or just contribute to Terraform’s open source project?

I know of at least one service where the service team introduced the needed APIs and then an employee of AWS wrote the TF provider and contributed to the project before AWS’s own internal team added it to CFT.

Source: former AWS ProServe employee. I am not referring to myself as the author.

Post reply on HN