Generate & Publish based on tf provider fork

[denniskniep]

Description of your changes

For development purposes it is useful to be able to generate and publish on top of a forked terraform provider.
Therefore this PR adds:

• Download tf-provider from github releases (instead of from hashicorp tf repo)
• Use optional action vars for ci to specify tf provider source (upstream or fork)
• Publish to different repo via optional action vars in ci

Please see Readme.md for more details.

BREAKING CHANGE:
The Github Action secret UPBOUND_MARKETPLACE_PUSH_ROBOT_USR needs to be moved to a Github Action variable

I have:

• Read and followed Crossplane's [contribution process].
• Run make reviewable test to ensure this PR is ready for review.

[Breee]

wrt to UPBOUND_MARKETPLACE_PUSH_ROBOT_USR that has to be done by some admin of the repo.

e.g. @haarchri

As i cannot see or change the secrets / env vars

[denniskniep]

@Breee what do you think in general about that change? Do you think it is useful to include it ?

[haarchri]

I would avoid this Change:

The Github Action secret UPBOUND_MARKETPLACE_PUSH_ROBOT_USR needs to be moved to a Github Action variable

all other providers in eco-system have a configuration to get this from secrets - why it's not possible to leave it as is ?

[Breee]

Thinking more about it, I don't think it's necessary.

Currently one can easily overwrite all the variables he needs and publish to their own registry using make publish.all (e,g, https://gitlab.com/corewire/images/provider-keycloak/-/blob/main/build.sh?ref_type=heads#L66, https://gitlab.com/corewire/images/provider-keycloak/-/blob/main/build.sh?ref_type=heads#L104)

We could provide a command in the makefile / a script tho to make this as simple as possible.

What is the benefit for you @denniskniep to publish via a CI/CD workflow instead of the makefile while developing?

[denniskniep]

Ok, its not absolutely necessary for me to integrate this with CI, though it would be nice, because I want to use it for temp. deployments if certain changes are not quickly integrated upstream.

Therefore also the change wrt UPBOUND_MARKETPLACE_PUSH_ROBOT_USR is not necessary anymore. (The change was necessary, because everything like env vars, which has the same value as the secret is masked automatically)

But can we agree on, that we stick with the new approach to download tf-provider from github releases (instead of from hashicorp tf repo)?

Then I will change the PR accordingly and also the readme part how to use a custom tf-provider fork and how to publish via makefile

[Breee]

Sounds good

…

On Sun, Jan 12, 2025, 21:28 Dennis Kniep ***@***.***> wrote: Ok, its not absolutely necessary for me to integrate this with CI, though it would be nice, because I want to use it for temp. deployments if certain changes are not quickly integrated upstream. Therefore also the change wrt UPBOUND_MARKETPLACE_PUSH_ROBOT_USR is not necessary anymore. (The change was necessary, because everything like env vars, which has the same value as the secret is masked automatically) But can we agree on, that we stick with the new approach to download tf-provider from github releases (instead of from hashicorp tf repo)? Then I will change the PR accordingly and also the readme part how to use a custom tf-provider fork and how to publish via makefile — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#204 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC3JPMOEMF4GJSLVLJ7NWPD2KLF5FAVCNFSM6AAAAABU3CS2IWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDKOBVHEYDKMRUGM> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[denniskniep]

@Breee
rebased to main and reverted the CI Pipeline changes. Added documentation how to publish from local system.

[Breee]

lgtm