#atmos (2024-01)

I figured it would be easier to keep [variables.tf](http://variables.tf) specific for the component since region seems more specific to [providers.tf](http://providers.tf)

I kind of like the idea. What do you think @Andriy Knysh (Cloud Posse) @Dan Miller (Cloud Posse)?

It makes it easier to distribute the way we do with [context.tf](http://context.tf)

yes, it makes it easier in almost all cases (some exceptions are when the other terraform resources besides the provider require a region, there are a few cases like that)

I’m also onboard with moving region to providers

I recall deploying account and account-map to gbl-root but i want to deploy it to ue2-root instead since gbl isn’t a real region

Hmm

https://github.com/cloudposse/atmos/blob/master/examples/quick-start/stacks/orgs/acme/plat/dev/global-region.yaml

https://github.com/cloudposse/atmos/blob/master/examples/quick-start/stacks/mixins/region/global-region.yaml

gbl is a virtual region that signifies that the resources deployed to it are global in AWS

for gbl environment, we still have a real AWS region

you can set it to the region you need in the _globals.yaml

then for global-region, should the non-virtual region be set to the primary region OR the region that aws uses which is us-east-1 for things like iam roles, aws iam identity center, etc

https://github.com/cloudposse/atmos/blob/master/examples/quick-start/stacks/mixins/region/global-region.yaml

environment: gbl is for you (and Atmos) to know that you are deploying global resources in AWS, e.g. S3 buckets and Route53 DNS zones

region: us-east-2 is for those terraform components that actually need an AWS region even if the resources are global, e.g. S3 buckets are global, but need an AWS region anyway

so region: us-east-2 is your primary region

i dont fully understand the why but to keep consistency with the atmos/cp refarch, ill set my environment: gbl’s region to the primary region and deploy the root components to the virtual region gbl instead of the primary region directly.

for those AWS resources that need a specific region, e.g. CloudFront in us-east-1 for SSL cert, then that special region is defined in the component itself

Thanks Andriy for the additional context

so gbl is just for people to distinguish the component that are global in AWS. You ran commands like atmos terraform apply account -s core-gbl-root and you se that account component is a global resource in AWS, it does not require a region

you can name gbl whatever you want, it’s configurable in the same file

and obviously, you are not forced to use global region at all

you can deploy account and DNS zones by executing atmos terraform apply account -s core-ue2-root if you want

I know but im also afraid of hitting additional walls for my preference lol

gbl is just a convention to tell people that those resources/components are global in AWS

also, the resource IDs will have gbl in them, so then you go to the AWS console and see something like acme-core-gbl-root-<my-resource-name>, you know the resource with that ID is global in AWS

ya I like that the gbl is in the name

the reason it claws at me is that i wonder if devs will accidentally deploy something in the global-region file instead of the {region} file because they think it’s global when it’s regional. I suppose more strict codeowners can help with that

I thought we did discuss removing the global region but my memory is failing me. It may have been considered but tossed because global-region is still valuable

also https://atmos.tools/core-concepts/components/validation

you can write policies to prevent any components to be deployed in the environments that you don’t want them in

https://atmos.tools/core-concepts/components/validation#opa-policy-examples

you can also combine the OPA policies with the overrides functionality https://atmos.tools/core-concepts/components/overrides#use-case-overrides-for-teams

e.g. add tags to all components per Team, then write OPA policies to act on those tags

can we write an opa to allowlist select components to be deployed only in the global-region ?

that would probably solve it for me

yes, can be done (I can help)

thanks Andriy!

it’s actually very easy: we can create an OPA policy to check the environment variable, and add the plicy to all components that need to be in the global region. If environment is not gbl, the policy will fail

something simple like this:

errors["the component can only be provisioned in the 'gbl' environment"] {
    input.vars.environment != "gbl"
}

then add the file to the components that need to be in gbl, similar to this:

https://atmos.tools/quick-start/configure-validation

https://atmos.tools/core-concepts/components/validation

i believe @Dan Miller (Cloud Posse) or @Ben Smith (Cloud Posse) might be proponents of dropping the gbl convention, but do not recall where that led. They might be able to add more context. It’s been brought up more than once in our ARB calls.

@Ben Smith (Cloud Posse) had a customer where they completely removed the gbl region, but personally I think we ~need~ should use the gbl region for components that don’t have a region or are globally defined

so yes removing the gbl region is supported, but for remote-state lookups in several components you’ll likely have to overwrite the given region/environment

Heh, “Powershell Land”

484 resolves a high issue and the others resolve a moderate one

All the prs have a label of no-release so they will go out on the next code release if they are merged prior

484 we can merge (although we have a PR whcih updates all the deps and will be merged in a day or two)

the rest are indirect deps - they will get updated when the main deps are updated by executing go mod tidy

they will be overridden next time we run the command

they are deps of the main deps modules

ah very nice

Ah a similar thread here

https://sweetops.slack.com/archives/CB6GHNLG0/p1675349647645099?thread_ts=1675349647.645099&cid=CB6GHNLG0

https://sweetops.slack.com/archives/C04NBF4JYJV/p1675436629971539?thread_ts=1675435664.815379&cid=C04NBF4JYJV

an aws-team Team grants an aws-sso Permission Set access by trusted_permission_sets

https://github.com/cloudposse/terraform-aws-components/blob/main/modules/aws-teams/variables.tf#L18

specifically, those Permission Sets are the “Identity-role-Team” permission sets, defined here with aws-sso https://github.com/cloudposse/terraform-aws-components/blob/main/modules/aws-sso/policy-Identity-role-TeamAccess.tf

for example in aws-sso, you could have:

components:
  terraform:
    aws-sso:
      vars:
...
        aws_teams_accessible:
        - "developers"

in aws-teams have

components:
  terraform:
    aws-teams:
      vars:
        teams_config:
...
          developers:
            <<: *user-template
            role_description: "developers team"
            role_policy_arns:
            - team_role_access
            trusted_teams:
            - admin
            trusted_permission_sets: [ "IdentityDevelopersAccess" ]

the tricky part is that the list elements defined in aws_teams_accessible are formatted into the “IdentityXAccess” string. In above, that would be developers formatted to be IdentityDevelopersAccess

formatting comes from roles-to-principals here https://github.com/cloudposse/terraform-aws-components/blob/main/modules/aws-sso/policy-Identity-role-TeamAccess.tf#L41-L48

Thanks Dan, I’ll follow this and see if I can get unblocked

please use https://atmos.tools/category/quick-start

The Quick Start describes the configuration of this repo https://github.com/cloudposse/atmos/tree/master/examples/quick-start, which is a working/deployable example explaining how to start with Atmos

@Andriy Knysh (Cloud Posse) I tried quick-start also, but facing issue mentioned in screenshot. I am not able to find how to give providers and backend from stack configuration and can’t find anything in doc also regarding this.

please help me in resolving this.

@Aayush Harwani please see this doc for how to configure TF backend with Atmos https://atmos.tools/quick-start/configure-terraform-backend/

btw, we’ve updated the docs and the quick start example, see https://atmos.tools/category/quick-start

also take a look at https://atmos.tools/design-patterns/

Thanks for helping out

Thanks, I’ll check these out

@marcelo.eguino chequea los nuevos documentos

in response to https://factoryfactoryfactory.net/

seeing some familiar pieces …

This resolves a high severity issue

https://github.com/cloudposse/atmos/security/dependabot/57

i’ve merged the PR

this is actually not how it works in Go, those are the deps of the deps

the main deps need to be updated by the authors

otherwise, they will be overridden every time we run go mod tidy

Thanks for merging Andriy.

I cloned master branch and ran go mod tidy and updated neithergo.mod nor go.sum files

we’ve been updating to GH Enterprise, and I believe this is an issue with the GH token during the transition. We’ll look into that

@Matt Gowie this was fixed https://github.com/cloudposse/atmos/releases/tag/v1.54.0

Awesome — thanks Andriy!

Nope… although with Terragrunt, it required changes to Spacelift. With atmos, we run in Spacelift using vanilla terraform using our components for spacelift.

as far as I’m concerned, atmos is natively supported on spacelift while you need to use custom settings to use gruntworks :)

According to spacelift we have ~1200 stacks (100% passing) and used more than 1.7 million minutes of atmos worker time including over 99k minutes of tracked runs over the last month. These are pretty typical monthly stats for us. Given that we run spacelift exclusively with atmos, every single stack, I very much feel like atmos is so completely, transparently, compatible and with Spacelift that Spacelift doesn’t need a setting for atmos.

Oh wow. Thats a good screen cap for the spacelift module to prove out the module and spacelift’s scalability

Glad to see this question come up!

My team and I were just discussing native Atmos support in Spacelift. The only thing that I see as non-native is the need for a custom image that has Atmos installed and the before_*** scripts around so they can be executed as those are required for Stacks to run successfully. We use our spacelift-atmos-runner for that purpose and were just discussing this topic in this PR.

I could see native support being a light lift to get added within Spacelift if they wanted to do so.

I think Spacelift should support 2 modes of configuration. 1) the current terraform provider approach 2) a config file approach the way that every single modern CI/CD system works e.g. GitHub Actions (.github/workflows), GitLab, CircleCI (.circleci), Jenkins (Jenkinsfile), Atlantis (atlantis.yml), etc. If it supported the latter, we would just generate the native config from atmos configs.

Today, we support generating the atlantis.yml from the Atmos stack configs.

This brings some snazzy branding to atmos.