if you try to create a S3 Bucket out of a "default region" `

I'm not sure what does this mean exactly ? What would be the value of region ?

if you try to create a S3 Bucket out of a "default region" `

I'm not sure what does this mean exactly ? What would be the value of region ?

When you don't specify a region, AWS for compat reasons will suppose you're in us-east-1 AFAIK, if region = "US", it'll set also us-east-1, if you set region = "EU", it'll set eu-west-1 IIRC.

Anyway, for backward compatibility, AWS will gladly take no region and give you the "default" regional S3, which is in most of the case us-east-1.

So when you go out of the default region, it will break because you cannot create from a regional S3 an S3 Bucket outside of the specified region which what the current code does:

• connect opens a session in the self.region region
• create uses the session to create a S3 Bucket in the defn.region region.

I still don't see how the issue happens exactly. region is required in the configuration of S3 (there is no default value) so if you create a nixops expression, you would need to set the value for region first.

Maybe to make it easier, what would be the steps to reproduce the issue you're describing ?

I still don't see how the issue happens exactly. region is required in the configuration of S3 (there is no default value) so if you create a nixops expression, you would need to set the value for region first.

Maybe to make it easier, what would be the steps to reproduce the issue you're describing ?

Try to create an S3 Bucket in the region us-west-1 for example, AFAIK, it'll fail, you don't need to create anything else.

Sure, defn.region is always set, but self.region is not. The bug is that we connect using self.region rather than defn.region or that self.region is not properly populated.

I'm not used to how self.*** vars are populated, what is their lifecycle, when is the first method called, when is the first time that they receive a defn object, etc.

So my easy fix is just to always use defn as an only source of truth which makes sense to me.

Try to create an S3 Bucket in the region us-west-1 for example, AFAIK, it'll fail, you don't need to create anything else.

I was able to create a bucket in us-west-1 without any issue.

Try to create an S3 Bucket in the region us-west-1 for example, AFAIK, it'll fail, you don't need to create anything else.

I was able to create a bucket in us-west-1 without any issue.

Okay, I'll come up with a repro case then.

@RaitoBezarius @AmineChikhaoui While you're looking into this, please look at the related https://github.com/NixOS/nixops/issues/1215

It turns out that this fixes NixOS/nixops#1215. Please merge it !

@NorfairKing I didn't have any time to reproduce the bug, do you have some repro case at the hand?

Here you go:

resources.s3Buckets.myBucket = {
        name = "mySuperUniqueBucketNameaeusnthaouenthu";
        versioning = "Suspended"; # Probably not even necessary.
        region = "eu-west-1";
        inherit accessKeyId;
};

@RaitoBezarius I'd like to get this merged.

I'd love to merge it, @NorfairKing — but @AmineChikhaoui would need to reproduce it.

For the example you've mentioned @NorfairKing , the issue was related to the bucket name containing upper case characters ( mySuperUniqueBucketNameaeusnthaouenthu )

Bucket names can consist only of lowercase letters,

Ref : https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/BucketRestrictions.html#bucketnamingrules

For the other example referenced by #88 , the bucket backup is definitely not unique and it must have been created in a different region than eu-west-1 as explained there

@tewfik-ghariani So it looks like my examples weren't good.
Do you mean to say that you cannot reproduce my problem?

@NorfairKing I mean that I noticed this could potentially be a false problem. Could you give it one more try while abiding to the bucket naming requirements?

@tewfik-ghariani Not really, I aleady started using the fork and that fixes my problem, so I definitely use a sensible bucket name right now. I'd prefer not to revert my setup and create additional buckets.
I just don't remember whether not using the fork still went wrong with a good bucket name. (It's been almost a year.)

Could we please merge this at some point? @RaitoBezarius

I will close this PR as I believe it has too much diverged from the source tree ; if the bug still remains, feel free to start a new PR based on this.