terraform-ls VS porter

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.

This is just a concept. AFAIK only one implemented this concept is Microsoft's project porter: https://github.com/getporter/porter

For porter I am talking about this project https://porter.run/ and NOT this https://porter.sh/

Porter

As far as I know the tool is used at least in Microsoft. The classic use case is where you want to install an application and also define the infrastructure as well (i.e cluster + db + lb + app). You can see the examples here https://github.com/getporter/porter/tree/main/examples

Check https://cnab.io/ and https://porter.sh/

I'm closely tracking an effort by Microsoft that aims to do a lot of what you're describing since I find myself bridging between these tools and deploying stacks that span tools and roles. [CNAB](https://cnab.io/) and the front-running implementation, [Porter](https://porter.sh/), enable one-step infra deployments, packaged as a single OCI-compatible container, with any number of steps, using the best tools for each of those steps. Think of using aws-cli for some initialization step (create or verify presence of a state bucket), applying some terraform to create infra, and finishing with a helm chart to complete deployment of app components. Each stage in a bundle packages not only the code to run it but also the execution binary of the tool that runs it. The spec and porter are still a moving target but it's a promising space and a nice adjacent evolution of the current state of tooling.

Cool, it's great to know that it isn't abandoned.

I'm not sure why you'd say that their business model was a success. They were bought by Microsoft for Azure. I guess I wonder if a PaaS company can survive without getting the profits off renting the machines to people. Amazon, Google, and Microsoft all have PaaS options based around the idea that it comes bundled with the compute, not as a standalone open-source thing for you to use on any platform.

I guess the question is whether Porter's business plan is "make enough that a company that owns a cloud wants to buy us". Oracle could probably use a nice PaaS platform and team. Maybe DigitalOcean would like to beef up their PaaS offering by acqui-hiring a team with proven knowledge.

Poking around https://deislabs.io, it's interesting to see that they have a project called "Porter" which seems to be unrelated to the "Porter" being launched here: https://porter.sh. They aren't quite the same, but they both have "easily run your app" goals.

There is already this from Microsoft https://github.com/getporter/porter