Skip to content

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Warn against secrets in state and promote ephemeral resources and write-only arguments #2299

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

Closed
aristosvo opened this issue May 10, 2025 · 0 comments

Comments

@aristosvo
Copy link

aristosvo commented May 10, 2025

Introduction

I have introduced two rules for ephemeral resources/write-only arguments for the AWS provider linter based on this issue, the last one being under review (tflint-ruleset-aws #861).

The question is how to bring these rules towards other providers, because this is not an issue limited to one provider.

Proposals

  • Proposal 1:
    The first proposal is to implement these two rules for every provider ruleset. This should not take long, as the code can be basically copy-pasted into each ruleset. The rules logic could lean more on the SDK to reduce the amount of code duplication.

  • Proposal 2:
    As the specific rulesets don't cover all known providers (and most specifically the hashicorp/random provider), we miss one of the most of the ephemeral replacement options:
    resource.random_passwordephemeral.random_password

    • Option a:
      To fix that we would have to include the same two rules for all other (or just a list of most used, to be extended) providers in tflint itself.
    • Option b:
      To fix that we would have to include the same two rules for all other (or just a list of most used, to be extended) providers in a separate ruleset.

References

@terraform-linters terraform-linters locked and limited conversation to collaborators May 10, 2025
@wata727 wata727 converted this issue into discussion #2300 May 10, 2025

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant