Restore AWS required version

[jasondamour]

Description

#178 removed the required_providers block, which now causes the following warning in my env:

│ Warning: Reference to undefined provider
│ 
│   on aws_ecs_cluster.tf line 16, in module "ecs_cluster":
│   16:     aws = aws.us_east_2
│ 
│ There is no explicit declaration for local provider name "aws" in module.ecs_cluster, so Terraform is assuming you mean to pass a
│ configuration for "hashicorp/aws".
│ 
│ If you also control the child module, add a required_providers entry named "aws" with the source address "hashicorp/aws".

Versions

• Module version [Required]:
  5.10.0

• Terraform version:
  Terraform v1.7.4

• Provider version(s):
  + provider registry.terraform.io/hashicorp/aws v5.41.0

Reproduction Code [Required]

module "ecs_cluster" {
  # https://github.com/terraform-aws-modules/terraform-aws-ecs
  source  = "terraform-aws-modules/ecs/aws"
  version = "~> 5.0"

  providers = {
    aws = aws.us_east_2
  }

  cluster_name = "us-east-2-fargate-cluster"
}

Expected behavior

No warning

Actual behavior

Warning printed.

Additional

Tagging @bryantbiggs since your PR removed the block, can you shed some light on that?

[bryantbiggs]

the AWS provider version is not required because there aren't any direct AWS resources - there are only modules. if you look at the underlying module definitions, these have AWS resources and therefore a required AWS provider version is supplied there

[jasondamour]

Could this module still include a versionless requirement? That way its clear it needs the AWS provider, but doesn't have its own version requirement. That way we can still override the provider without warnings:

  required_providers {
    aws = {
      source  = "hashicorp/aws"
    }

[bryantbiggs]

I'm curious - what are you doing that you need to pass an aliased provider to the root module?

[jasondamour]

Should be pretty obvious from my reproduction code, I have different aliases for different regions

[bryantbiggs]

thats generally a poor practice to follow, putting all/multiple regions into one statefile. if any one region experiences a disruption, you are blocked on making changes. it also means your blast radius is quite high for a single statefile

[jasondamour]

Nonetheless, it is valid Terraform code. For this module, its reasonable to state that it requires the AWS provider, no?

edit: For what its worth, I also use aliases for multiple separate AWS accounts in the same workspace.

[jasondamour]

Its a fairly common practice; here you can see all of the other modules in this github org using the provider.

https://github.com/search?q=org%3Aterraform-aws-modules+required_providers+path%3Aversions.tf&type=code

I'll open a PR for it

[bryantbiggs]

yes, we have the required provider versions where a provider is used (where a resource is used). There are ZERO resources in the root module of this project, there are simply two sub-modules wrapped by the root module - each sub-module has its own requirements defined.

see - your PR failed, because its not used

[jasondamour]

I think I disagree with this linting rule. Isn't the provider is being used implicitly? To hide this linting error, I could add the following to every child module block in main.tf:

providers = {
  aws = aws
}

However I think that adds needless bloat lines. Otherwise how do you suggest passing a provider alias, if I have two AWS accounts (i.e. aws.account_a and aws.account_b)? I'm open to suggestions.

[antonbabenko]

I like #181 (missing version requirements there), and I think we should have required_providers like @jasondamour tells.

We should always have it there as long as resources are being created by either the root or by the submodules that are being called from the root. Having the required_providers block indicates that the root module expects to have the hashicorp/aws provider (the original one, and not one of its forks published on the registry) of a specific minimum version available.

Technically, the resources belong to the root module even though the configuration resides in the submodules it calls. Root modules and submodules may have different version requirements.

[jasondamour]

Hi @antonbabenko @bryantbiggs, please review and merge #181

I left out the version per @bryantbiggs suggestion, since the version does come from the child modules and it doesn't need to be duplicated

[github-actions]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has been open 30 days
with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this issue will be closed in 10 days