In my experience, running a plan is much less likely to catch a bad value than the AWS provider.
Subjectively, the AWS provider will at least validate that fields have valid values during the plan step. The Google provider doesn't seem to validate actual values until apply, and then you get a failure
I can’t help but feel… sad about this. I only recently picked up Terraform and am astounded that this is what goes as coding in the infrastructure world. I was coming from Ansible so there was only improvement to be had, but man did Terraform let me down so far.
It (well, the provider) doesn’t validate fields until apply. That’s just so… sad. How is that acceptable? It’s like a car without a steering wheel, and people just go along with it.
It's not really Terraform's fault. Terraform provides the capability to do all kinds of validations before running an apply, but it's up to the providers to implement the validations. If the provider doesn't implement the validation, then it's not there.
It gets hairier when you delve into the details. The provider is typically an official provider that wraps some company's API, so that company ought to have a good set of validations, since it's their own API, right? Wrong. The team that writes the Terraform provider is typically different from the team that creates API methods, and the API methods themselves don't typically expose "dry-run" style functionality, so there's little for the team writing the Terraform provider to check. Meanwhile, the business doesn't care - the Terraform provider checkbox is already checked and validations/dry-running isn't a feature that affects revenue.
Do you know how hard/tedious/pointless it is to write client side evaluations for everything you do on the server? The documentation for the Google Cloud provider is shit though and absolutely should be improved.
How is a terraform plan different from a dry run?
I always mentally mapped terraform plan == dry run to validate what changes will be made. Your comment throws a gauntlet into that understanding..
Search is the majority of their revenue so that they can subsidize their other products. Devastation somehow doesn't feel like it properly captures how much it would hurt them to lose it.
I used to open source every single thing I built. But recently, I stopped doing that because now I build everything as a single monorepo. All of my completely disconnected side project ideas are all in one repo and I'm much more happy being able to keep this like dependencies up to date in one place instead of having a different repo per project.
I would like to go back to open sourcing all things I play with but maybe I need to find a repo structure and tooling that would make that more sustainable.
The highlight of the fact that large org adoption is slow feels really valuable here. Especially when we just recently had all of the articles that claimed that ChatGPT was "over" when it appears that this is mostly because of things like summer vacations with students. The adoption and understanding of these products and the risk involved with hallucinations is something that will take time to understand.
I recently joined one of the LLM provider companies and watching these phases over the next few years will be really interesting. Especially combined with what's going on with regulation and the like.
Random aside, hi Elad! I think you're reading some of these comments. I just left Color after ~2.5 years. I hope to get to formally introduce myself to you one day.
Just another random anecdotal experience with Chip.
I was interviewing with Claypot.ai and when I met her for my first conversation, she was on a walking treadmill and very clearly was more interested in a Slack conversation she was having.
She moved me on to the next round which I irrefutably bombed and was respectfully told that I wouldn't be moving on which was the right decision, but I'll never forget watching her walking motion while looking at Slack on her second monitor almost the entire time we were talking.
It’s possible they were taking notes on the second monitor. Many interview coaches recommend taking notes during the interview to capture the response, largely verbatim, so that candidates can be fairly compared afterwards.
I've taken notes in plenty of interviews (and make sure to call it out ahead of time) but taking notes verbatim sounds absolutely terrible for both sides. A good interview is a conversation, and it's incredibly hard to do that if you're trying to transcribe the other half.
everyone has bad days/things they regret. i'm not sure this is a relevant discussion to the content, and personal anecdotes can be very damaging to a person's reputation - i've met her in person and she is delightful, but neither of us are here to judge people so lets stick to the content?
You are very correct. Thank you for the reminder. I can't tell if I'm just missing it and can't find it but I "authorize" a deletion of my comment as off-topic if there's a way for me to do that.
