Terraform Version

Terraform v0.12.28
+ provider.google v3.28.0

Terraform Configuration Files

# ./main.tf
module "project" {
  source          = "../../../../blueprints/gcp/project"
  billing_account = "002A75-ABB3C9-680D62"
  folder_id       = "746484843613"
  project_id      = "di-test-mod-gcp-project-1"
  owner           = "owner@example.com"

  

Description
Python 2 Deprecation FAQ is showing twice on the right navigation

Suggested Fix
Is this a duplicate on the index and then it is also pulling it into view from the .rst file? Unsure, but it looks incorrect.

**Type of documentati

Related #12020.

I'm migrating some customers from GP2 to GP3 and I can't do it because CDK doesn't support this new EBS types. Even in the latest CDK Version (1.78.0) there is no way to use this.. On the other hand, Cloudformation already supports these new EBS types.

Use Case

Because I need perform a migration from gp2 to gp3 and this customer uses CDK to automate infra.

Prop

Requesting that you add the new Gitlab Provider as a new VCS Provider.

See here for the provider details: https://registry.terraform.io/providers/gitlabhq/gitlab/latest

Describe the bug
This resource causes the error WARNING: skipped AWS017 check due to error(s): value is null

And it happens even if I try to explicit skip AWS017 from cli:

tfsec --exclude AWS017
WARNING: skipped AWS017 check due to error(s): value is null

tfs

For example-

infracost/infracost:1.0.1-tf0.12.26, infracost/infracost:1.0.1-tf0.13.1

Deployment Circuit Breakers is now GA https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2020/12/amazon-ecs-announces-the-general-availability-of-ecs-deployment-circuit-breaker/

We should enable both of of these fields by default: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSCloudFormation/latest/UserGuide/aws-properties-ecs-service-deploymentcircuitbreaker.html so that the next time customers deploy their services

Garbage collection works by listing everything with the gc-tag. In a busy cluster, we really want that filter to happen server-side and ideally using an index of some sort.

That means we should use a Kubernetes label, not an annotation.

I think this will require a two-step migration plan (write both but continue to read annotation; release; drop support for annotation; release).

Because having to type the whole commands is a pain!