-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 198
Add a purl type definition for terraform #498
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
55e9030
to
b9bc350
Compare
PURL-TYPES.rst
Outdated
- ``registry_url``: A registry URL where the provider/module may be found, but | ||
not intended as the only location. This value is encouraged to identify a | ||
location the content may be fetched in case the default registry is not used. | ||
- The ``subpath`` is used to distinguish between a provider and a module. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just one thought: it seems fairly abnormal to require a subpath. Is this something that is actually required to identify the terraform components or could it be made optional? In other words: is there overlap between provider and module where pkg:terraform/hashicorp/aws@version
is unable to identify software because there are both providers and modules available at hashicorp/aws
(or other names)? The fact this is required makes me think there is some overlap and if the case, maybe it's better to add this as the namespace? e.g.
pkg:terraform/provider/hashicorp/[email protected]
pkg:terraform/module/terraform-aws-modules/[email protected]
pkg:terraform/module/terraform-aws-modules/[email protected]?registry_url=https://registry.example.com
... or lean into the other suggestion having multiple types, of terraform-provider
, teraform-module
, etc..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fair point. I think in practice there is no overlap between modules and providers, but afaik there could be overlap. I agree that it might make sense to add it to the namespace instead of using a subpath.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I did think a bit more about this and I belive in reality there is no overlap between module and provider names. Because I had to update the PR to use the new JSON schema I got rid of this distinction in the subpath. Let me know what you think.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems simpler to me, thanks! 👍
After the merge of PR #514, PURL types are now defined in JSON: 😇 😁 With the new approach... this needs to be updated. Can you take a stab at it? Thanks for your understanding ! |
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gosteli <[email protected]>
b9bc350
to
0c9929d
Compare
PR is updated with the new JSON format. Let me know what you think |
See #369 for details.
Please let me know what you think. This proposal is for now solely based on my ideas and I'm open for feedback. It might even make sense to define two distinct types
terraform-provider
andterraform-module
for more clarity.