Why no name set for IAM policies / roles?

[jeroenhabets]

Not sure if this is an issue/improvement or just a question...

After successfully and happy using your module for 1+ year, I noticed many IAM policies / roles created with names like terraform-20220315113738630100000001.

This because in iam.tf several resources do not have the name property set:

• resource "aws_iam_policy" "cluster_instance_policy"

resource "aws_iam_policy" "cluster_instance_policy" {
  description = "cluster-instance-policy-${var.component}-${var.deployment_identifier}-${var.cluster_name}"
  policy      = local.cluster_instance_policy_contents
}

• resource "aws_iam_role" "cluster_service_role"
• "aws_iam_policy" "cluster_service_policy"

Is this by design? Or should I change this issue into a "Feature Request" (or "Bugfix") and provide a PR with the name set like the description?

[jeroenhabets]

@jonassvalin is this by design? If not, it's trivial to fix (I can contribute a PR if desired).

[jeroenhabets]

Hi @infrablocks-maintainers, @tobyclemson, @Gryff, @jonassvalin, an update on the issues/questions and PRs (#95, #94, #93) would be much appreciated!
Sorry to bother you this way but I haven't seen any activity since Feb so you're getting me worried here 😅 .

[Gryff]

Hi @jeroenhabets, apologies we are really busy at the moment, we're going to get to these next week.

[jonassvalin]

@jeroenhabets Yes this is by design. The reason is that we want to be able to deploy multiple instances of the module into the same account. This causes issues if you hardcode a name, and the other option would be to template a name based on certain passed properties, but this is difficult to accomplish in a consistent way without breaking the AWS maximum character length requirements. We're open to suggestions for how to handle it differently to give you more visibility, but yes, it's by design.

[jeroenhabets]

Hi @jonassvalin, thanks but the module is naming other objects already, e.g.:

capacity_provider.tf: name = "cp-${var.component}-${var.deployment_identifier}-${var.cluster_name}"
and even in iam.tf e.g:
name = "cluster-instance-profile-${var.component}-${var.deployment_identifier}-${var.cluster_name}"

and using the ${var.deployment_identifier} and ${var.cluster_name} there for identification (and ensure uniqueness).

So I don't see why we couldn't and shouldn't do the same for resource "aws_iam_policy" "cluster_instance_policy", resource "aws_iam_role" "cluster_service_role" and "aws_iam_policy" "cluster_service_policy" (using what's now in their description or if you're worried about the length, abbreviate the prefixes, e.g. "cip- like "cp-).

Or am I making a critical thinking error here?

Sorry, to be adamant but for Compliance / Auditability / Policy enforcement, naming in AWS is rather important to us.

[jeroenhabets]

@jonassvalin, @Gryff would you be open to a PR here? P.S. there are 3 PRs pending.