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
I think in most use cases, we allow access of the DB from another security group (app tier for example). Actually I must provide a cidr_block for the security group to use the module even if I don't want to.
I would be nice to have the choice between cidr_blocks or source_security_group_id for the allow_rule. As these two options create a conflict, I think two rules should be used , one for the cidr_blocks and the other for the source_security_group_id. Then it's just a matter of count = 0|1 based on the value of the variables (that's my actual workaround).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Yes, I agree with what you are saying. The creation of security group with different types of values is currently not implemented and your solution sounds good. Could you please submit a PR with it?
I think in most use cases, we allow access of the DB from another security group (app tier for example). Actually I must provide a cidr_block for the security group to use the module even if I don't want to.
I would be nice to have the choice between
cidr_blocks
orsource_security_group_id
for the allow_rule. As these two options create a conflict, I think two rules should be used , one for thecidr_blocks
and the other for thesource_security_group_id
. Then it's just a matter ofcount = 0|1
based on the value of the variables (that's my actual workaround).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: