Is there a better way than the following to handle a Terraform data resource aws_ami_ids returning an empty list?
Always want the module to return the latest AMI's ID if found.
If the list was empty I was getting a "list "data.aws_ami_ids.full_unencrypted_ami.ids" does not have any elements so cannot determine type." error, so this was the workaround.
data "aws_ami_ids" "full_unencrypted_ami" {
name_regex = "${var.ami_unencrypted_regex}"
owners = ["123456789","self"]
}
locals {
notfound = "${list("AMI Not Found")}"
unencrypted_ami = "${concat(data.aws_ami_ids.full_unencrypted_ami.ids,local.notfound)}"
}
output "full_ami_unencrypted_id" {
description = "Full Unencrypted AMI ID"
value = "${local.full_unencrypted_ami[0]}"
}
1) Use aws_ami_id instead of aws_ami_ids so that terraform apply fails if the AMI is gone, forcing you to update your Terraform solution.
OR
2) Create two aws_ami_ids data sources (the second being a fallback), concat the results and take the first item. But, as ydaetskcoR hinted at, why would you want this implicit (possibly undetected) fallback?
Related
The problem I am trying to solve is I need to identify one of the Azure subnets in a virtual network by part of it's name. This is so I can then later retrieve it's CIDR. I only know part beforehand such as "mgmt-1" or "egress-1". The actual name of the subnet is much longer but will end in something like that. This was my process:
I have the vnet name so I pull all subnets:
data "azurerm_virtual_network" "this" {
name = local.vnet
resource_group_name = "myrg"
}
Now what I wish I could do is this:
locals {
mgmt_index = index(data.azurerm_virtual_network.this.subnets, "*mgmt-1")
mgmt_subnet = data.azurerm_virtual_network.this.subnets[local.mgmt_index]
}
However index wants an exact match, not a regex. Is this possible to do? Perhaps a better way?
Thank you,
It is not possible to directly look up a list item using a regex match, but you can use for expressions to apply arbitrary filters to a collection when constructing a new collection:
locals {
mgmt_subnets = toset([
for s in data.azurerm_virtual_network.this.subnets : s
if can(regex(".*?mgmt-1", s.name))
])
}
In principle an expression like the above could match more than one object, so I wrote this to produce a set of objects that match.
If you expect that there will never be more than one object whose name matches the pattern then you can use Terraform's one function to assert that and then Terraform will check to confirm that there's no more than one element (returning an error if not) and then return that one value.
locals {
mgmt_subnet = one([
for s in data.azurerm_virtual_network.this.subnets : s
if can(regex(".*?mgmt-1", s.name))
])
}
If the condition doesn't match any of the subnet objects then in the first case you'll have an empty set and in the second case you'll have the value null.
I am trying to create a GCP project with this:
module "project-factory" {
source = "terraform-google-modules/project-factory/google"
version = "11.2.3"
name = var.project_name
random_project_id = "true"
org_id = var.organization_id
folder_id = var.folder_id
billing_account = var.billing_account
activate_apis = [
"iam.googleapis.com",
"run.googleapis.com"
]
}
After that, I am trying to create a service account, like so:
module "service_accounts" {
source = "terraform-google-modules/service-accounts/google"
version = "4.0.3"
project_id = module.project-factory.project_id
generate_keys = "true"
names = ["backend-runner"]
project_roles = [
"${module.project-factory.project_id}=>roles/cloudsql.client",
"${module.project-factory.project_id}=>roles/pubsub.publisher"
]
}
To be honest, I am fairly new to Terraform. I have read a few answers on the topic (this and this) but I am unable to understand how that would apply here.
I am getting the error:
│ Error: Invalid for_each argument
│
│ on .terraform/modules/pubsub-exporter-service-account/main.tf line 47, in resource "google_project_iam_member" "project-roles":
│ 47: for_each = local.project_roles_map_data
│ ├────────────────
│ │ local.project_roles_map_data will be known only after apply
│
│ The "for_each" value depends on resource attributes that cannot be determined until apply, so Terraform cannot predict how many instances will be created. To work around this, use the
│ -target argument to first apply only the resources that the for_each depends on.
Looking forward to learn more about Terraform through this challenge.
With only parts of the configuration visible here I'm guessing a little bit, but let's see. You mentioned that you'd like to learn more about Terraform as part of this exercise, so I'm going to go into a lot of detail about the chain here to explain why I'm recommending what I'm going to recommend, though you can skip to the end if you find this extra detail uninteresting.
We'll start with that first module's definition of its project_id output value:
output "project_id" {
value = module.project-factory.project_id
}
module.project-factory here is referring to a nested module call, so we need to look one level deeper in the nested module terraform-google-modules/project-factory/google//modules/core_project_factory:
output "project_id" {
value = module.project_services.project_id
depends_on = [
module.project_services,
google_project.main,
google_compute_shared_vpc_service_project.shared_vpc_attachment,
google_compute_shared_vpc_host_project.shared_vpc_host,
]
}
Another nested module call! 😬 That one declares its project_id like this:
output "project_id" {
description = "The GCP project you want to enable APIs on"
value = element(concat([for v in google_project_service.project_services : v.project], [var.project_id]), 0)
}
Phew! 😅 Finally an actual resource. This expression in this case seems to be taking the project attribute of a google_project_service resource instance, or potentially taking it from var.project_id if that resource was disabled in this instance of the module. Let's have a look at the google_project_service.project_services definition:
resource "google_project_service" "project_services" {
for_each = local.services
project = var.project_id
service = each.value
disable_on_destroy = var.disable_services_on_destroy
disable_dependent_services = var.disable_dependent_services
}
project here is set to var.project_id, so it seems like either way this innermost project_id output just reflects back the value of the project_id input variable, so we need to jump back up one level and look at the module call to this module to see what that was set to:
module "project_services" {
source = "../project_services"
project_id = google_project.main.project_id
activate_apis = local.activate_apis
activate_api_identities = var.activate_api_identities
disable_services_on_destroy = var.disable_services_on_destroy
disable_dependent_services = var.disable_dependent_services
}
project_id is set to the project_id attribute of google_project.main:
resource "google_project" "main" {
name = var.name
project_id = local.temp_project_id
org_id = local.project_org_id
folder_id = local.project_folder_id
billing_account = var.billing_account
auto_create_network = var.auto_create_network
labels = var.labels
}
project_id here is set to local.temp_project_id, which is declared further up in the same file:
temp_project_id = var.random_project_id ? format(
"%s-%s",
local.base_project_id,
random_id.random_project_id_suffix.hex,
) : local.base_project_id
This expression includes a reference to random_id.random_project_id_suffix.hex, and .hex is a result attribute from random_id, and so its value won't be known until apply time due to how that random_id resource type is implemented. (It generates a random value during the apply step and saves it in the state so it'll stay consistent on future runs.)
This means that (after all of this indirection) module.project-factory.project_id in your module is not a value defined statically in the configuration, and might instead be decided dynamically during the apply step. That means it's not an appropriate value to use as part of the instance key of a resource, and thus not appropriate to use as a key in a for_each map.
Unfortunately the use of for_each here is hidden inside this other module terraform-google-modules/service-accounts/google, and so we'll need to have a look at that one too and see how it's making use of the project_roles input variable. First, let's look at the specific resource block the error message was talking about:
resource "google_project_iam_member" "project-roles" {
for_each = local.project_roles_map_data
project = element(
split(
"=>",
each.value.role
),
0,
)
role = element(
split(
"=>",
each.value.role
),
1,
)
member = "serviceAccount:${google_service_account.service_accounts[each.value.name].email}"
}
There's a couple somewhat-complex things going on here, but the most relevant thing for what we're looking at here is that this resource configuration is creating multiple instances based on the content of local.project_roles_map_data. Let's look at local.project_roles_map_data now:
project_roles_map_data = zipmap(
[for pair in local.name_role_pairs : "${pair[0]}-${pair[1]}"],
[for pair in local.name_role_pairs : {
name = pair[0]
role = pair[1]
}]
)
A little more complexity here that isn't super important to what we're looking for; the main thing to consider here is that this is constructing a map whose keys are built from element zero and element one of local.name_role_pairs, which is declared directly above, along with local.names that it refers to:
names = toset(var.names)
name_role_pairs = setproduct(local.names, toset(var.project_roles))
So what we've learned here is that the values in var.names and the values in var.project_roles both contribute to the keys of the for_each on that resource, which means that neither of those variable values should contain anything decided dynamically during the apply step.
However, we've also learned (above) that the project and role arguments of google_project_iam_member.project-roles are derived from the prefixes of elements in the two lists you provided as names and project_roles in your own module call.
Let's return back to where we started then, with all of this extra information in mind:
module "service_accounts" {
source = "terraform-google-modules/service-accounts/google"
version = "4.0.3"
project_id = module.project-factory.project_id
generate_keys = "true"
names = ["backend-runner"]
project_roles = [
"${module.project-factory.project_id}=>roles/cloudsql.client",
"${module.project-factory.project_id}=>roles/pubsub.publisher"
]
}
We've learned that names and project_roles must both contain only static values decided in the configuration, and so it isn't appropriate to use module.project-factory.project_id because that won't be known until the random project ID has been generated during the apply step.
However, we also know that this module is expecting the prefix of each item in project_roles (the part before the =>) to be a valid project ID, so there isn't any other value that would be reasonable to use there.
Therefore we're at a bit of an empasse: this second module has a rather awkward design decision that it's trying to derive a both a local instance key and a reference to a real remote object from the same value, and those two situations have conflicting requirements. But this isn't a module you created, so you can't easily modify it to address that design quirk.
Given that, I see two possible approaches to move forward, neither ideal but both workable with some caveats:
You could take the approach the error message offered as a workaround, asking Terraform to plan and apply the resources in the first module alone first, and then plan and apply the rest on a subsequent run once the project ID is already decided and recorded in the state:
terraform apply -target=module.factory
terraform apply
Although it's annoying to have to do this initial create in two steps, it does at least only matter for the initial creation of this infrastructure. If you update it later then you won't need to repeat this two-step process unless you've changed the configuration in a way that requires generating a new project ID.
While working through the above we saw that this approach of generating and returning a random project ID was optional based on that first module's var.random_project_id, which you set to "true" in your configuration. Without that, the project_id output would be just a copy of your given name argument, which seems to be statically defined by reference to a root module variable.
Unless you particularly need that random suffix on your project ID, you could leave random_project_id unset and thus just get the project ID set to the same static value as your var.project_name, which should then be an acceptable value to use as a for_each key.
Ideally this second module would be designed to separate the values it's using for instance keys from the values it's using to refer to real remote objects, and thus it would be possible to use the random-suffixed name for the remote object but a statically-defined name for the local object. If this were a module under your control then I would've suggested a design change like that, but I assume the current unusual design of that third-party module (packing multiple values into a single string with a delimiter) is a compromise resulting from wanting to retain backward compatibility with an earlier iteration of the module.
I have a variable that the user will input during run time. Lets say the variable name is region. However, I want the execution to be only successful if the user picks a value from one of the values defined in a list/ choices.
how can I restrict it so the user's selection has to match values that are considered acceptable in the variable definition?
Stumbled across this question.
Since v0.13.0 input validation has been possible directly via the input variables. Thus you can actually achieve this with a snippet such as below.
variable "test_variable" {
type = string
description = "some test value"
validation {
condition = contains(["item1", "item2", "item3"], var.test_variable)
error_message = "Valid values for var: test_variable are (item1, item2, item3)."
}
}
Read more here - https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/custom-variable-validation-in-terraform-0-13
One solution:
variable "values_list" {
description = "acceptable values"
type = "list"
default = ["true", "false"]
}
variable "somevar" {
description = "must be true or false"
}
resource "null_resource" "is_variable_value_valid" {
count = "${contains(var.values_list, var.somevar) == true ? 0 : 1}"
"ERROR: The somevar value can only be: true or false" = true
}
If you pass a value different than "true" or "false" for the "somevar" variable, Terraform will throw an error and stop. The disadvantage is that you have to list all values in the default block of values_list.
Source: https://stackoverflow.com/a/54256780/1364793
Terraform currently has no first-class feature for this, but you can achieve the desired effect (albeit with a less-helpful error message) by asking Terraform to look the value up in a map:
variable "example" {
description = "must be a, b, or c"
}
locals {
allowed_example_values = { for v in ["a", "b", "c"] : v => v }
checked_example = local.allowed_example_values[var.example] # will fail if var.example is invalid
}
Because the values in the allowed_example_values map are the same as the keys, you can then use local.checked_example in place of var.example everywhere else in the module to set up the dependency graph such that it's impossible for an invalid value to be used.
Some caveats/limitations:
You can't customize the error message that Terraform will return when the value is invalid. Instead, Terraform will return the generic error about the key not matching any element in the map. However, it will include the source code snippet from the affected line in the error message (in Terraform 0.12 or later) so the comment at the end of that line should be visible in the error message and thus provide an additional clue to the user as to what might be wrong.
This works fully only for string values, because map keys are always strings in Terraform. Using other primitive types can work as a result of Terraform's automatic conversions from bool and number to string, but you should be sure to explicitly declare the type of the variable (using e.g. type = number) to ensure that Terraform will normalize incoming values into the expected type before looking them up in the map. This technique will not work at all for collection and structural types.
I wouldn't suggest using strings "true" and "false" since Terraform has a bool type which can represent that more intuitively. If you are using Terraform 0.11 and earlier then it's not possible to constrain to bool, but in Terraform 0.12 and later you can declare a variable as type = bool and then Terraform will handle the validation automatically.
I am creating a series of resources in terraform (in this case, dynamo DB table). I want to apply IAM policies to subgroups of them. E.g.
resource "aws_dynamodb_table" "foo" {
count = "${length(var.tables)}"
name = "foo-${element(var.tables,count.index)}"
tags {
Name = "foo-${element(var.tables,count.index)}"
Environment = "<unsure how to get this>"
Source = "<unsure how to get this>"
}
}
All of these share some common element, e.g. var.sources is a list composed of the Cartesian product of var.environments and var.sources:
environments = ["dev","qa","prod"]
sources = ["a","b","c"]
So:
tables = ["a:dev","a:qa","a:prod","b:dev","b:qa","b:prod","c:dev","c:qa","c:prod"]
I want to get the arns of the created dynamo tables that have, e.g. c (i.e. those with the name ["c:dev","c:qa","c:prod"]) or prod(i.e. those with the name ["a:prod","b:prod","c:prod"]).
Is there any sane way to do this with terraform 0.11 (or even 0.12 for that matter)?
I am looking to:
group the dynamo db table resources by some of the inputs (environment or source) so I can apply some policy to each group
Extract the input for each created one so I can apply the correct tags
I was thinking of, potentially, instead of creating the cross-product list, to create maps for each input:
{
"a": ["dev","qa","prod"],
"b": ["dev","qa","prod"],
"c": ["dev","qa","prod"]
}
or
{
"dev": ["a","b","c"],
"qa": ["a","b","c"],
"prod": ["a","b","c"]
}
It would make it easy to find the target names for each one, since I can look up by the input, but that only gives me the names, but not make it easy to get the actual resources (and hence the arns).
Thanks!
A Terraform 0.12 solution would be to derive the cartesian product automatically (using setproduct) and use a for expression to shape it into a form that's convenient for what you need. For example:
locals {
environments = ["dev", "qa", "prod"]
sources = ["a", "b", "c"]
tables = [for pair in setproduct(local.environments, local.sources) : {
environment = pair[0]
source = pair[1]
name = "${pair[1]}:${pair[0]}"
})
}
resource "aws_dynamodb_table" "foo" {
count = length(local.tables)
name = "foo-${local.tables[count.index].name}"
tags {
Name = "foo-${local.tables[count.index].name}"
Environment = local.tables[count.index].environment
Source = local.tables[count.index].source
}
}
At the time I write this the resource for_each feature is still in development, but in a near-future Terraform v0.12 minor release it should be possible to improve this further by making these table instances each be identified by their names, rather than by their positions in the local.tables list:
# (with the same "locals" block as in the above example)
resource "aws_dynamodb_table" "foo" {
for_each = { for t in local.tables : t.name => t }
name = "foo-${each.key}"
tags {
Name = "foo-${each.key}"
Environment = each.value.environment
Source = each.value.source
}
}
As well as cleaning up some redundancy in the syntax, this new for_each form will cause Terraform to identify this instances with addresses like aws_dynamodb_table.foo["a:dev"] instead of aws_dynamodb_table.foo[0], which means that you'll be able to freely add and remove members of the two initial lists without causing churn and replacement of other instances because the list indices changed.
This sort of thing would be much harder to achieve in Terraform 0.11. There are some general patterns that can help translate certain 0.12-only constructs to 0.11-compatible features, which might work here:
A for expression returning a sequence (one with square brackets around it, rather than braces) can be simulated with a data "null_data_source" block with count set, if the result would've been a map of string values only.
A Terraform 0.12 object in a named local value can in principle be replaced with a separate simple map of local value for each object attribute, using a common set of keys in each map.
Terraform 0.11 does not have the setproduct function, but for sequences this small it's not a huge problem to just write out the cartesian product yourself as you did in the question here.
The result will certainly be very inelegant, but I expect it's possible to get something working on Terraform 0.11 if you apply the above ideas and make some compromises.
I am trying to get the security groups associated with the instance with id "i-0abcdefgh1234" but the output gives no result.
terraform.tf
data "aws_instance" "ec2" {
instance_id = "i-0abcdefgh1234"
filter {
name = "tag:Name"
values = ["name-of-the-server"]
}
}
output "sg" {
value = "${data.aws_instance.ec2.*.security_groups}"
}
Output
data.aws_instance.ec2: Refreshing state...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No changes. Infrastructure is up-to-date.
This means that Terraform did not detect any differences between your
configuration and real physical resources that exist. As a result, no
actions need to be performed.
Tried with and without * below
value = "${data.aws_instance.ec2.*.security_groups}"
The interpolation syntax for data sources is data.TYPE.NAME.ATTRIBUTE. See this
In your case it will be ${data.aws_instance.ec2.security_groups}
However, as the documentation states - "Some values are not always set and may not be available for interpolation."