Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Better visualization of aws_security_group modifications #7817

Closed
johnrengelman opened this issue Jul 26, 2016 · 2 comments
Closed

Better visualization of aws_security_group modifications #7817

johnrengelman opened this issue Jul 26, 2016 · 2 comments

Comments

@johnrengelman
Copy link
Contributor

version: 0.16

It's difficult to visualize modifications to AWS security group rules due to how the hash for specific rules is calculated. For example, adding additional CIDRs results in something like this:

  ingress.1461745566.cidr_blocks.#:     "3" => "0"
  ingress.1461745566.cidr_blocks.0:     "172.23.4.0/22" => ""
  ingress.1461745566.cidr_blocks.1:     "208.137.6.0/24" => ""
  ingress.1461745566.cidr_blocks.2:     "68.233.167.160/28" => ""
  ingress.1461745566.from_port:         "8080" => "0"
  ingress.1461745566.protocol:          "tcp" => ""
  ingress.1461745566.security_groups.#: "0" => "0"
  ingress.1461745566.self:              "false" => "false"
  ingress.1461745566.to_port:           "8080" => "0"
  ingress.2239610842.cidr_blocks.#:     "3" => "0"
  ingress.2239610842.cidr_blocks.0:     "172.23.4.0/22" => ""
  ingress.2239610842.cidr_blocks.1:     "208.137.6.0/24" => ""
  ingress.2239610842.cidr_blocks.2:     "68.233.167.160/28" => ""
  ingress.2239610842.from_port:         "8181" => "0"
  ingress.2239610842.protocol:          "tcp" => ""
  ingress.2239610842.security_groups.#: "0" => "0"
  ingress.2239610842.self:              "false" => "false"
  ingress.2239610842.to_port:           "8181" => "0"
  ingress.3443610518.cidr_blocks.#:     "0" => "5"
  ingress.3443610518.cidr_blocks.0:     "" => "172.23.4.0/22"
  ingress.3443610518.cidr_blocks.1:     "" => "208.137.6.0/24"
  ingress.3443610518.cidr_blocks.2:     "" => "209.236.99.0/26"
  ingress.3443610518.cidr_blocks.3:     "" => "216.58.165.0/24"
  ingress.3443610518.cidr_blocks.4:     "" => "68.233.167.160/28"
  ingress.3443610518.from_port:         "" => "8080"
  ingress.3443610518.protocol:          "" => "tcp"
  ingress.3443610518.security_groups.#: "0" => "0"
  ingress.3443610518.self:              "" => "false"
  ingress.3443610518.to_port:           "" => "8080"
  ingress.3910482560.cidr_blocks.#:     "0" => "5"
  ingress.3910482560.cidr_blocks.0:     "" => "172.23.4.0/22"
  ingress.3910482560.cidr_blocks.1:     "" => "208.137.6.0/24"
  ingress.3910482560.cidr_blocks.2:     "" => "209.236.99.0/26"
  ingress.3910482560.cidr_blocks.3:     "" => "216.58.165.0/24"
  ingress.3910482560.cidr_blocks.4:     "" => "68.233.167.160/28"
  ingress.3910482560.from_port:         "" => "8181"
  ingress.3910482560.protocol:          "" => "tcp"
  ingress.3910482560.security_groups.#: "0" => "0"
  ingress.3910482560.self:              "" => "false"
  ingress.3910482560.to_port:           "" => "8181"

This is difficult to parse for most people to see the changes. Additionally, the changes make it appear that much more is happening then just simply adding some CIDRs to the same ingress or egress block.
I realize that this is an effect of how this data is tracked in the state file but was hoping that we could brainstorm on some ways of displaying these changes more effectively.

@apparentlymart
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @johnrengelman! Sorry we let this languish here for so long.

It looks like this is a more specific version of the issue raised in (and addressed by) #5179, so I'm going to close this out to consolidate the discussion over there.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 14, 2020

I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues.

If you have found a problem that seems similar to this, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.

@ghost ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 14, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants