terraform-provider-argocd VS terraform-provider-aws

I'm looking at projects like https://github.com/oboukili/terraform-provider-argocd and wondering if using this project would be an anti-pattern? For context I have a repo hosted with DigitalOcean that looks like atlantis provisioning terraform code folder -> atlantis code -> argocd -> pritunl. I'm thinking I want my initial terraform code to provision atlantis, then have atlantis provision an argocd server, then have argocd provision a custom pritunl helm chart. Just wondering if I should use Terraform to manage the argocd provisioning aspect of it or not and if it makes sense?

I'll use the example of the Argo CD provider. In a single Terraform run, we would like to:

API for IaaC: At least for Pulumi, it appears not all IPv6 settings are configurable. For example, I could not retrieve IPv6 automatically in the same way as IPv4 via Elastic IP, or I could not configure ICMPv6 ACL (a similar issue is reported in the Terraform repository).

In this blog post, we will automate the deployment of the basic forex rate assistant in Terraform using the resources that were recently released in v5.47.0 of the Terraform AWS Provider. Let's start by looking at the AWS resources in the AWS Management Console.

⚠ There is currently an issue where the additional_configuration block order causes differences when applying the Terraform configuration without making any changes.

For Terraform, instead, a new version of the AWS module supports a dedicated resource.

If we check the support for the Terraform AWS Provider here (state for the date of publishing this article), we will see that the service is not yet fully supported. Last week, after more than half a year, support for creating a policy store was added. Additionally, we have the configuration to add template policies. However, the identity source is in the form of a PR draft, and there is no PR yet for the ability to create policies.

https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws/issues/3...

The size is what you get when you add every single AWS Go client into one binary.

Each service client like 1-2MB. But when you have 200 services....

Issue with EC2 Instance Metadata running inside Container

Well, at least we now have a promising lead. Some diligent googling and browsing through Github issues in the AWS provider project yielded no directly related findings. However, I did come across a few recent bug reports about the recent change AWS made regarding the treatment of public buckets. And interestingly, they described precisely the behavior I was encountering.