-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 459
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Streamline Usage of Prebuilt Providers #331
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm looking forward to using pre-built providers
- [AWS Provider](https://cdk.tf/provider/aws) | ||
- [Google Provider](https://cdk.tf/provider/google) | ||
- [Azure Provider](https://cdk.tf/provider/azurerm) | ||
- [Kubernetes Provider](https://cdk.tf/provider/kubernetes) | ||
- [Docker Provider](https://cdk.tf/provider/docker) | ||
- [Github Provider](https://cdk.tf/provider/github) | ||
- [Null Provider](https://cdk.tf/provider/null) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I"m curious how this list was chosen. I was expecting all hashicorp official providers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Mostly popularity, Github
because I want to build an example case for Level 2 constructs and Null
because it's a building block which useful for things like ecr asset
The current state is an advanced proof of concept. Mid / long term I think there would be more providers if not all at some point. For now, the goal is collecting feedback and building some examples to see if the UX is going in the right direction.
Things like:
- versioning (version constraints for peer dependencies, how does it work in Python, ...)
- major version changes (e.g. AWS 2.0 -> 3.0)
- improve the auto publish pipeline
- building upon these providers
- adding tests to the provider publish pipeline
docs/working-with-cdk-for-terraform/using-providers-and-modules.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
docs/working-with-cdk-for-terraform/using-providers-and-modules.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
docs/working-with-cdk-for-terraform/using-providers-and-modules.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
docs/working-with-cdk-for-terraform/using-providers-and-modules.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…s.md Co-authored-by: Anubhav Mishra <anubhavmishra@users.noreply.github.com>
…s.md Co-authored-by: Anubhav Mishra <anubhavmishra@users.noreply.github.com>
I'm going to lock this pull request because it has been closed for 30 days. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues. If you've found a problem that seems related to this change, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further. |
This streamlines the experience of using prebuilt Terraform providers:
In
cdktf.json
: When noterraformProviders
andterraformModules
are set, the check for the presence ofcodeMakerOutput
is omitted. This allows running the check, even when using a prebuilt provider alongside custom generated providers or modules.In addition, this pull request, introduces a minimal template (see #308). This is a good starter when using prebuilt providers.
Last but not least, it adds a bit of documentation.
Fixes #98
Fixes #284
Fixes #275
Fixes #308
Fixes #320