Add Terraform/Remote State documentation to provider/resource section.

[johnrengelman]

Issue #2074

[radeksimko]

Although I may agree with you the current place is not the best place for newcomers, I'm not overly happy with duplicating the docs since it would become difficult to maintain and keep in sync across these places.

[johnrengelman]

How about leaving the portions about the resource usage in the 'Resource section' and just providing links on each?

[josephholsten]

@radeksimko @johnrengelman did you two come to an agreement? I'm personally in favor of having the doc in one authoritative place, and a link to it in the other place.

[phinze]

I'm +1 for moving the canonical docs over to this structured resource format and linking off to them from the state docs. @johnrengelman do you have time to add the links? If not one of us can close this and resubmit for you with the additions.

[johnrengelman]

@phinze I'll get this updated this week. I started on it last week and then got lazy.

[johnrengelman]

@phinze updated and pushed. Let me know what you think.

[apparentlymart]

I like this organization of the docs much better. Thanks!

The main page of the Terraform provider talks a lot about it being a "logical provider". While it's true that it currently only has one resource and that is a logical resource, I'm not sure the concept of a "logical provider" is really meaningful. If #3164 were accepted, this provider would contain both a logical resource and a "normal" resource.

Could we instead put all of the explanation about the logical resource on the terraform_remote_state doc page, and just have the provider index page just talk about this provider being used to interact with the results from other Terraform configurations?

Of course #3164 may be considered a bad idea and so such factoring may not be needed, so I'd be fine with merging this as-is and then I'll adjust the docs as I described as part of finishing that other PR.

[radeksimko]

@johnrengelman Thank you for bringing up this PR. The current state LGTM. I will merge it separately due to some conflicts in the attached branch. Thank you for the patience.

If #3164 were accepted, this provider would contain both a logical resource and a "normal" resource.

@apparentlymart While I'm really looking forward to see #3164 or #4169 being transformed into reality I'm feeling it may take some time to fine-tune the concept and more importantly to implement it and I believe that docs should reflect the current state at least.

[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.