» Repository Structure
Terraform Enterprise integrates with version control repositories to obtain configurations and trigger Terraform runs. Structuring these repos properly is important because it determines which files Terraform has access to when Terraform is executed within Terraform Enterprise, and when Terraform plans will run.
» Manageable Repos
As a best practice for repository structure, each repository containing Terraform code should be a manageable chunk of infrastructure, such as an application, service, or specific type of infrastructure (like common networking infrastructure).
When repositories are interrelated, we recommend using remote state to transfer information between workspaces. Small configurations connected by remote state are more efficient for collaboration than monolithic repos, because they let you update infrastructure without running unnecessary plans in unrelated workspaces.
» Structuring Repos for Multiple Environments
When each repository represents a manageable chunk of Terraform code, it's often still useful to attach a single repository to multiple workspaces in order to handle multiple environments or other cases where similar infrastructure is used in a different context. There are three primary ways to structure the Terraform code in your repository to manage multiple environments (such as dev, stage, prod).
Depending on your organization's use of version control, one method for multi-environment management may be better than another.
» Multiple Workspaces per Repo (Recommended)
Using a single repo attached to multiple workspaces is the simplest best-practice approach, as it enables the creation of a pipeline to promote changes through environments, without additional overhead in version control. When using this model, one repo, such as
terraform-networking, is connected to multiple workspaces —
networking-dev. While the repo connection is the same in each case, each workspace can have a unique set of variables to configure the differences per environment.
To make an infrastructure change, a user opens a pull request on the
terraform-networking repo, which will trigger a speculative plan in all three connected workspaces. The user can then merge the PR and apply it in one workspace at a time, first with
networking-stage, and finally
networking-prod. Eventually, Terraform Enterprise will have functionality to enforce the stages in this pipeline.
This model will not work for a given repo if there are major environmental differences. For example, if the
networking-prod workspace has 10 more unique resources than the
networking-stage workspace, they likely cannot share the same Terraform configuration and thus cannot share the same repo. If there are major structural differences between environments, one of the below approaches may be better.
For organizations that prefer long-running branches, we recommend creating a branch for each environment. When using this model, one repo, such as
terraform-networking, would have three long-running, branches —
Using the branch strategy reduces the number of files needed in the repo. In the example repo structure below, there is only one
main.tf configuration and one
variables.tf file. When connecting the repo to a workspace in TFE, you can set different variables for each workspace — one set of variables for
prod, one set for
stage, and one set for
├── README.md ├── variables.tf ├── main.tf ├── outputs.tf ├── modules │ ├── compute │ │ ├── README.md │ │ ├── variables.tf │ │ ├── main.tf │ │ ├── outputs.tf │ ├── networking │ │ ├── README.md │ │ ├── variables.tf │ │ ├── main.tf │ │ ├── outputs.tf
Each workspace listens to a specific branch for changes, as configured by the VCS branch setting. This means that plans will not occur in a given workspace until a PR is opened or a push event occurs on the designated branch. The
networking-prod workspace would be configured to listen to the
dev. To promote a change to
stage, open a PR against the
stage branch. To promote to prod, open a PR from
The upside of this approach is that it requires fewer files and runs fewer plans, but the potential downside is that the branches can drift out of sync. Thus, in this model, it's very important to enforce consistent branch merges for promoting changes.
For organizations that have significant differences between environments, or prefer short-lived branches that are frequently merged into the master branch, we recommend creating a separate directory for each environment.
Important: Since workspaces will queue a plan whenever their VCS branch changes or receives a pull request, you should avoid connecting too many workspaces to the same repository. Connecting more than about ten workspaces to one branch of a repo can cause slow performance and unnecessary noise; if you need to support more workspaces than that, we recommend splitting components into multiple repos.
In the example repo structure below, the prod, stage, and dev environments have separate
main.tf configurations and
variables.tf files. These environments can still refer to the same modules (like
├── environments │ ├── prod │ │ ├── README.md │ │ ├── variables.tf │ │ ├── main.tf │ │ ├── outputs.tf │ ├── stage │ │ ├── README.md │ │ ├── variables.tf │ │ ├── main.tf │ │ ├── outputs.tf │ ├── dev │ │ ├── README.md │ │ ├── variables.tf │ │ ├── main.tf │ │ ├── outputs.tf ├── modules │ ├── compute │ │ ├── README.md │ │ ├── variables.tf │ │ ├── main.tf │ │ ├── outputs.tf │ ├── networking │ │ ├── README.md │ │ ├── variables.tf │ │ ├── main.tf │ │ ├── outputs.tf
When using this model, each workspace is configured with a different Terraform Working Directory. This setting tells TFE which directory to execute Terraform in. The
networking-prod workspace is configured with
prod as its working directory, the
networking-stage workspace is configured with
stage as its working directory, and likewise for
networking-dev. Unlike in the previous example, every workspace listens for changes to the master branch. Thus, every workspace will run a plan when a change is made to master, because (for example) changes to the modules could affect any environment's behavior.
The potential downside to this approach is that changes have to be manually promoted between stages, and the directory contents can drift out of sync. This model also results in more plans than the long-lived branch model, since every workspace plans on each PR or change to master.