provider/aws: Add Security Group Rule as a top level resource

[catsby]

First attempt at making Security Group Rules (ingress, egress) top level resources.

This is raw, like sushi, and probably needs refinement, but it's a good start.

Missing:

• documentation

cc @phinze

[geofffranks]

Any ETA on when this will be merged/released? Will fix an issue I'm running into very similar to #539

Tried out dev binaries from this branch and it works great, just looking to see when I can expect this from upstream. Thanks!

[catsby]

cc @phinze or @mitchellh for feedback when you can

[phinze]

Code looks great!

Trying to think out the behavior here for SGs that have some rules defined nested and others not. Perhaps that's just something we solve with documentation at this point?

Basically a user who wants to use the top-level rules needs to not define any nested rules. Yeah?

(Eventually we'll build in a first-class concept of nested resources so we can express the nested ones as just "versions" of these top level ones.)

[geofffranks]

FWIW, my use case has rules defined both in the SG and in an SGR (in different modules) and it worked great in my (albeit only one) test.

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 30, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Paul Hinze notifications@github.com wrote:

Code looks great!

Trying to think out the behavior here for SGs that have some rules defined nested and others not. Perhaps that's just something we solve with documentation at this point?

Basically a user who wants to use the top-level rules needs to not define any nested rules. Yeah?

(Eventually we'll build in a first-class concept of nested resources so we can express the nested ones as just "versions" of these top level ones.)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[catsby]

Basically a user who wants to use the top-level rules needs to not define any nested rules. Yeah?

@phinze great question... I'll have to think on that and tinker with it... but I believe we'd want to solve that with documentation at this point.

[catsby]

@phinze tested it out – if a user has egress rules in a SG config, and also a SG_RULE resource, the two will conflict. Updates to the SG will destroy the RULE.

Seems like Documentation is the way to "solve" this for now 😦

[c4milo]

single

[ghost]

I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues.

If you have found a problem that seems similar to this, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.