terraform-plugin-sdk VS pulumi-terraform-bridge

Reference : Plugin Development url references

> We're coming up on 10000 resources in our main Terraform repository and while there is definitely some friction, it's overall much better than having to hit the cloud API's to gather each of those states which would probably take at least an order of magnitude longer.

I don't think that's necessary true. Most cloud API's actually can return hundreds of records with 1 API calls, e.g. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticloadbalancing/latest/APIR... has a maximum page size of 400.

If I manage the cloud resources via some custom tools and/or with some ansible-fu, I can decide to batch the API calls when it makes sense.

With terraform, it is not possible to do so (https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-plugin-sdk/issues/66, https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws/issues/2...).

While it would be nice for Terraform to find duplicate resource blocks prior to the apply, it's impossible for it to do this without knowledge of the underlying provider being used. As an example, in AWS you could have multiple aws_instance resource blocks with identical attributes and it would be a perfectly acceptable situation (you'd probably be better off with an ASG, but I digress). The real issue here is that the Azure API is not returning an error when the duplicate resource group is being created. The parent feature request mentions other situations, some resulting in errors (preferred/acceptable), others resulting in duplicate resources. However, none are as potentially dangerous as a resource group since it can contain any number of other resources.

Currently, we are working on an internal refactoring to clean up code from the past years, even before we started the maintainership. Due to the upgrade to terraform-sdk-v2, we have new abilities for logging, debugging, and testing in isolation. Also, tools for the generation of documentation will simplify the process and keep it up-to-date. But first of all, we want to fix the reported bugs and clarify if they are still present after the update. We also plan to add support for running docker behind a jump host and provision docker containers. Our most aspiring goal is to come close to the docker CLI as possible. To achieve this, we plan to review which code we can reuse and integrate. For example, this has already been happened in the past to allow the converging possibility for docker services. We plan to add the generation of the changelog as we enforce already conventional commits from angular. After talking about the path towards milestone 3.0, we wrap it up with the conclusion.

Thank you for pointing that out u/tgulacsi I changed the type to Int and the panic issue was resolved; however, preferably I would like to use what the API definition states which is int64, but if I understood correctly, there is no native way of doing without conversion according to this GitHub Issue, which seems to be more of Terraform limitation than anything.

This particular situation is interesting because I can't think of any situation where it would be valid for Create to return a real null without also indicating an error, and so in theory the SDK itself could catch that situation and report it to you using SDK terminology instead, perhaps even directing you to make sure you called d.SetId. It could be worth sharing this experience as an issue in the Terraform SDK repository so that the team which works on the SDK can consider whether it's possible for the SDK to give you better feedback in this situation, rather than just returning the invalid result to Terraform Core to check.

I did some more work on this and it seems [1] is the way to go, because it indeed prevents an explosion of resources (and as a result lots of duplication in the documentation). Secondly, there are explicit provisions in the terraform plugin SDK to handle sets of fields which are conflicting with others, so mistakes are handled even at terraform init.

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].