RIght now Rover is essentially a helper/wrapper for terraform that manages things to work better with the launchpad. However, rover uses a completely unique syntax in order to interact with it.
I think it would speed adoption if rover use was in parity with terraform use, at least the key features.
Example: don't require -lz or -a in order to select a landingzone and action (especially as its just essentially just a project). Allow [dir] to be specified if desired, or just run off the current directory if not (you can read full path and get the "landingzone" name anyway).
These little differences trip things up a lot. Look at the following, especially if Ive already browsed into the project folder in question:
terraform plan
# vs
rover -a plan -lz /tf/caf/full/path/
# but image this
rover plan
This would make rover a bit more "terragrunt-like", but I dont thinkj thats a bad thing.
RIght now Rover is essentially a helper/wrapper for terraform that manages things to work better with the launchpad. However, rover uses a completely unique syntax in order to interact with it.
I think it would speed adoption if rover use was in parity with terraform use, at least the key features.
Example: don't require
-lz
or-a
in order to select a landingzone and action (especially as its just essentially just a project). Allow [dir] to be specified if desired, or just run off the current directory if not (you can read full path and get the "landingzone" name anyway).These little differences trip things up a lot. Look at the following, especially if Ive already browsed into the project folder in question:
This would make rover a bit more "terragrunt-like", but I dont thinkj thats a bad thing.