terraform-ls VS cue

Marcin here, one of the OpenTF folks

This repo [0] seems to still be licensed under MPL, so there is no need for an immediate action, but if there is a willingness in the community to take it over and improve, I see no reason why we wouldn't do it.

[0] https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-ls

For example my other issue with simple click through URLs to resource documentation pages, this would be a simple solution if the resource documentation URL formatting was done to a standard with the resource names.

I have followed this guide: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-ls/blob/main/docs/USAGE.md

As /u/fridgedigga, neither LSP implements renaming. The LSP spec can be found here. I don't know how all of this is wired up. At a minimum, you'll need to add a mapping in service.go and handler. The bulk of work is performed in the handlers.

Look at terraform-ls vs terraform-lsp. Both can be used with coc.nvim.

For the LSP, I have never heard of Terraform before but it looks like they have a section on using it with vim/neovim. Not sure if this is already part of what you have tried, but I can't really help more since I have never used it.

This worked, thank you! I found all the cli options here for anyone that needs them.

https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-ls

These are both fairly limited but you can see every editor (except intellij) uses this under the hood.

I've used them at companies with 300+ terraform repos and have never had much of an issue navigating/understanding TF through Vim.

So, what happens when you run the server from command line and then open your file in Kate? Any difference? Also, is there any command argument for logging and/or debugging the terraform-ls? It might help to find the issue, if any. I found this from the docs.

I'm continuing to work on https://concise-encoding.org which is a new security-conscious ad-hoc encoding format to replace JSON/XML and friends. I've been at it for 3 years so far and am close to a release.

In a nutshell:

- Edit in text, transmit in binary. One can be seamlessly converted to the other, but binary is far more efficient for processing, storage and transmission, while text is better for humans to read and edit (which happens far less often than the other things).

- Secure by design: Everything is tightly specced and accounted for so that there aren't differences between implementations that can be exploited to compromise your system. https://github.com/kstenerud/concise-encoding/blob/master/ce...

- Real type support because coercing everything into strings sucks (and is another security risk and source of incompatibilities).

XML had a good run but was replaced by JSON which was a big improvement. JSON also had a good run but it's time for it to retire now that the landscape has changed even further: Security and efficiency are the desires of today, and JSON provides neither.

I've got the spec nailed down and can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel for the reference implementation in golang. I still need to come up with a system for schemas, but I'm hoping that https://cuelang.org will fit the bill.

Has anyone taken a look at Cue who can share any experiences?

https://cuelang.org/

It's mentioned on the site as an alternative to Yaml. Recently watched (~half of) this intro to it: https://youtu.be/fR_yApIf6jU

the most interesting summary explanation of cue lang and its differences is from a bug filing - https://github.com/cuelang/cue/issues/33

>CUE is a bit different from the languages used in linguistics and more tailored to the general configuration issue as we've seen it at Google. But under the hood it adheres strictly to the concepts and principles of these approaches and we have been careful not to make the same mistakes made in BCL (which then were copied in all its offshoots). It also means that CUE can benefit from 30 years of research on this topic. For instance, under the hood, CUE uses a first-order unification algorithm, allowing us to build template extractors based on anti-unification (see issue #7 and #15), something that is not very meaningful or even possible with languages like BCL and Jsonnet.

I agree with you. Personally, I think Cue is much better than either YAML, TOML or JSON because it adds the concept of types to the idea of describing configuration.

true, but the tooling and workflow remains the same.

Not sure of any tool that could abstract the details sufficiently to be widely adopted. There is just too much nuance in cloud config.

I'm exploring using CUE (https://cuelang.org) to define TF resources, exporting as JSON for TF. So far it's much nicer