You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It would be nice if we had the environment variable first rather than the name of the module because that way it would be easier to sort resources by environment when we have too many resources.
Yes, I am aware that there are tags, filters, etc; but this change would make the list of resources look neat visually not a huge jungle of names with seemingly no order.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@shinenelson could you share an example of the output you are seeing? are you referring to swapping the name and environment in the tags or the resource name?
are you referring to swapping the name and environment in the tags or the resource name?
the resource names
currently, the naming preference of the resources provisioned by this module is of the form "${var.name}-${var.environment}" ( or variations with prefixes and suffixes ). I was suggesting to swap these to be "${var.environment}-${var.name}".
Using the environment first would make resources list on the AWS management console easier to visually segregate. For example,
@shinenelson Hey, sorry for the slow comms. This sounds like it would be reasonable in a vacuum, but for users who already have deployed the module it might be a destructive change. What would the migration path look like?
It would be nice if we had the
environment
variable first rather than the name of the module because that way it would be easier to sort resources by environment when we have too many resources.Yes, I am aware that there are tags, filters, etc; but this change would make the list of resources look neat visually not a huge jungle of names with seemingly no order.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: