fix: replace legacy provider definition with provider requirements #9
+13
−22
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Allow this module to be used with for_each & count constructs, so it doesn't run into the issues described here: https://developer.hashicorp.com/terraform/language/modules/develop/providers#legacy-shared-modules-with-provider-configurations
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Freshdesk #1442
what
Remove
providerdefinitions from the main and bootstrap modules.why
Customers are currently unable to use looping constructs to deploy this module in multiple projects.
Defining providers directly inside modules is a legacy pattern that prevents callers from using constructs like
for_each&count:https://developer.hashicorp.com/terraform/language/modules/develop/providers#legacy-shared-modules-with-provider-configurations
testing
Testing locally, leaving in draft while testing with a customer who is hitting this limitation.
docs
I don't think so...