magic-modules VS pulumi-terraform-bridge

Given: https://registry.terraform.io/providers/hashicorp/google/5.3...

how would any reasonable person know what https://registry.terraform.io/providers/hashicorp/google/5.3... to enable without (a) trying it and squinting at the error message (b) clicking on the <> then realizing it, also, does not mention run.googleapis.com, click on "supported service endpoints" <https://cloud.google.com/run/docs/reference/rest#rest_endpoi...> and only then learning about https://cloud.google.com/run/docs/reference/rest#service:-ru...

Repeat for https://registry.terraform.io/providers/hashicorp/google/5.3... although in both cases I guess the astute reader may have spotted the run.googleapis.com in the forbidden service labels and cloudidentity.googleapis.com in the example

Since, to the best of my knowledge those bindings are auto generated <https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/magic-modules#magic-m...>, I would hypothesize it is not insurmountable drop in the seemingly existing declaration of APIs required: https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/magic-modules/blob/7d... https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/magic-modules/blob/7d...

In the case of the Google Cloud Platform provider, folks at Google built magic modules with the explicit goal of being able to generate schemas and behaviors for a Terraform provider and for other systems with similar needs. Since the vendor was explicitly aiming to support Terraform, this was the most ideal case where the schema could be designed to contain all of the information needed to generate a functional, usable provider.

I think the "Developing the provider" instructions in this provider's repository are rather stale, because they still talk about GOPATH even though that's been obsolete for several Go versions now. Note also that much of the code in that repository is auto-generated from an upstream repository googleCloudPlatform/magic-modules, and so for some changes it may be better to contribute there once you've tested the modifications more directly inside the provider repository.

For GCP, both ansible modules and terraform modules are actually generated from https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/magic-modules, so their "production readiness" are the same.

I understand that mitchellh himself personally created a bunch of cloud modules for terraform at the beginning, and those were likely of higher quality than whatever created by some internal developers assigned by Google/Microsoft, and might be slightly better than the AWS modules maintained by community.

Anyway, when it comes to ansible versus terraform, we shall move the discourse to states management instead. With ansible, you don't have to deal with states, but will need to clean up the cloud resources separately. With terraform, you can use the tool to clean up the cloud resources easily, but then you also have the headache of managing states. Plus, whenever you change something, there is always the nagging feeling that it will do a destroy/recreate instead of an in-place update.

The Terraform provider for Google Cloud uses partial autogeneration, here is the repo that does the autogeneration for multiple automation tools:

https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/magic-modules

GA: automatic token mapping and aliasing in the bridge, which we're now using to simplify the resources.go file in bridged providers

Yes, pulumi is just wrapping terraform[1]. So you need to understand both the quirks of that and the quirks of pulumi. And I'm lazy so I just want to deal with one quirk at the time.

[1] https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi-terraform-bridge

After digging, I saw python libraries in my venv directory that is related to Terraform Bridge and the tool that was used to generate code - https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi-terraform-bridge

They have an open source tool that translates the TF providers into Pulumi providers, so people could continue to build updated providers - https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi-terraform-bridge

> If Pulumi didn't bless it, it doesn't exist in Pulumi's world.

That has not been my experience. I have personally ported a Sentry TF provider into Pulumi, and I will grant you that their docs and examples are bordering on active user hatred for exercising the process, but it does work:

https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi-terraform-bridge#adapting-a...

https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi-tf-provider-boilerplate#rea...

What mystifies me about that situation is that I do actually appreciate the amount of silliness that is required to avoid using Pulumi cloud: they are not financially incentivized to make that easy, but I'd guess a lot more folks would nope right out if they didn't make it possible

However, I would think they'd want to make ingesting a TF provider into Pulumi as smooth and reliable as possible, so they don't have people close their browser tab when they don't find a supported provider for Pulumi but it exists in TF

For provisioning infrastructure in AWS, there are other tools besides those provided by AWS themselves. This includes Terraform and Pulumi. Both of these are not tied to any particular public cloud provider, or not even to public cloud providers only. Any kind of Software-as-a-service (SaaS) provider that can provide some service or infrastructure via programming interfaces can in theory be provisioned by these tools. Terraform has a long list of providers, and Pulumi can use Terraform providers in addition to its providers.

I think they might use their (pulumi-terraform-bridge)[https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi-terraform-bridge] to generate some of their provider code from the corresponding Terraform providers? (This page mentioned some of their "most interesting providers" are created like this)[https://www.pulumi.com/docs/intro/vs/terraform/#using-terraform-providers].