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

feat: Allow to manage github app secret manually #3703

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

NadavOps
Copy link
Contributor

@NadavOps NadavOps commented Jan 6, 2024

No description provided.

@NadavOps NadavOps changed the title something: allow to manage github app secret manually feat: Allow to manage github app secret manually Jan 6, 2024
@NadavOps
Copy link
Contributor Author

NadavOps commented Jan 6, 2024

This way we can create the parameter manually, and not need a way to pass the secret through env variable or other secret mechanism to avoid from saving it in the version control system.

@npalm
Copy link
Member

npalm commented Jan 10, 2024

Thank you for taking the time to create a PR. There is with the current module no need to store the secrets on disk. You can inject them via environment variable. By settint TF_ENV_<variable_name> you can set the variables. Other optison are read variables passed in via the command line. Both options will avoid you from storing variables in VCS.

In a pipeline you can use the secrets to pass the secrets into the deployment. Please can you explain what is not working with those options for you?

@NadavOps
Copy link
Contributor Author

NadavOps commented Jan 13, 2024

Thank you for taking the time to review
Injecting is a valid option but It is something I like to avoid because it is an additional setup for other systems. so having the option to create the secret manually and pass it to the module is something that does not hurt anyone and can benefit people like me :)

I also think its better to have more control over the parameter string name, I can change that in case you agree to the PR conceptually

@npalm
Copy link
Member

npalm commented Feb 8, 2024

Sorry for the delay. Please can you update the documentation with this option. I think it is good to add some more details to the AWS paramater section.

Please can you format the terraform code?

@NadavOps
Copy link
Contributor Author

@npalm Hey, added explanation

@@ -7,13 +7,19 @@ resource "aws_ssm_parameter" "github_app_id" {
}

resource "aws_ssm_parameter" "github_app_key_base64" {
count = var.github_app.key_base64 == null ? 0 : 1
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How did you test this by setting the variable explicit to null? In the app object?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@NadavOps is this PR still relevant for you. How to test this?

Copy link
Contributor

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had activity in the last 30 days. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Apr 13, 2024
@npalm npalm removed the Stale label Apr 16, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had activity in the last 30 days. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label May 17, 2024
@npalm npalm removed the Stale label May 17, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had activity in the last 30 days. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Aug 16, 2024
@npalm npalm removed the Stale label Aug 16, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants