swap name and environment?

[shinenelson]

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.

[avanti-joshi]

@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?

[shinenelson]

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,

prod-wa-1
prod-wa-2
staging-wa-1
staging-wa-2
staging-wa-3
test-wa-1
test-wa-2
test-wa-3
test-wa-4

would be easier to parse visually, than

wa-1-prod
wa-1-staging
wa-1-test
wa-2-prod
wa-2-staging
wa-2-test
wa-3-staging
wa-3-test
wa-4-test

[rpdelaney]

@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?