New rule: aws_provider_missing_tags #633
Conversation
rules/aws_provider_missing_tags.go
Outdated
| "github.com/terraform-linters/tflint-plugin-sdk/tflint" | ||
| "github.com/terraform-linters/tflint-ruleset-aws/project" | ||
| "github.com/zclconf/go-cty/cty" | ||
| "golang.org/x/exp/slices" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The slices package is already available as a standard package in Go 1.21.
https://pkg.go.dev/slices@go1.21
rules/aws_provider_missing_tags.go
Outdated
|
|
||
| // Name returns the rule name | ||
| func (r *AwsProviderMissingTagsRule) Name() string { | ||
| return "aws_provider_missing_tags" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe aws_provider_missing_default_tags is a better name. What do you think?
| Expected: helper.Issues{ | ||
| { | ||
| Rule: NewAwsProviderMissingTagsRule(), | ||
| Message: "The provider `default` is missing the `default_tags` block", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You may be wondering what this "default" is if you haven't set up an alias.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
changed the output, though it's kind of awkward
rules/aws_provider_missing_tags.go
Outdated
| sort.Strings(missing) | ||
| wanted := strings.Join(missing, ", ") | ||
| issue := fmt.Sprintf("The provider is missing the following tags: %s.", wanted) | ||
| runner.EmitIssue(r, issue, location) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please check the error return value.
rules/aws_provider_missing_tags.go
Outdated
| var providerTags []string | ||
| attr, ok := block.Body.Attributes[providerTagsAttributeName] | ||
| if !ok { | ||
| r.emitIssue(runner, providerTags, config, provider.DefRange) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
block.DefRange would be better than provider.DefRange.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is no block, this case is for when default_tags doesn't exist.
rules/aws_provider_missing_tags.go
Outdated
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Check tags | ||
| r.emitIssue(runner, providerTags, config, provider.DefRange) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
attr.Range would be better than provider.DefRange.
|
|
||
| ## Why | ||
|
|
||
| You want to set a standardized set of tags for your AWS resources via the provider default tags. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it would be more helpful to mention its use with the aws_resource_missing_tags rule in specific scenarios.
At least, this is what I thought about this rule first:
- Why not
aws_resource_missing_tagsrule? - What is the difference from
aws_resource_missing_tagsrule? - When should I use this rule?
It's a good idea to include answers to these questions in the "Why" section. Perhaps the explanation in the PR will be helpful.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
fleshed out the doc
|
I love this rule, thanks @bootswithdefer 💖 |
|
@wata727 could create a new tag so we can use it? AFAIK we can't add a plugin with a commit ID as the version? |
|
v0.32.0 has been released. |
Adds an
aws_provider_missing_tagsrule, which requires specific tags for AWS provider default_tags blocks. Theaws_resource_missing_tagsrule is not sufficient, it enforces the set of tags that end up on the resource, but it doesn't enforce the practice of applying them via default_tags instead of resource tags. Using default tags results in more DRY terraform.I would see this being used in conjunction with
aws_resource_missing_tags, whereaws_provider_missing_tagsis used for common tags andaws_resource_missing_tagsis used for more resource-specific tags (like Name).