Add require 'aws-sdk' as needed

[shortdudey123]

The aws-sdk gem namespace was being called before it was required.
Solves #181

[tas50]

+1

[tas50]

Avoids the need for including the default recipe if the user installs the SDK via the chef-client cookbooks or via another method.

[miketheman]

I don't I understand why this solves the problem.

In these lines, create_aws_interface is meant to require & initialize the client.

If the @@ec2 object is empty at the time, then this method should be invoked.

It's entirely possible that the class variable name is a misnomer, and that it should be renamed to @@aws and used globally to instantiate an AWS Client interface and that create_aws_interface should be pulled out of EC2-only land.

Will this solve a particular immediate problem? Maybe. Will it continue to prove confusing for others? More likely.

[shortdudey123]

create_aws_interface can't be called if the namespace is not valid (i.e. the gem has not been required yet)

[miketheman]

@shortdudey123 Then I must be missing something, because it's right here at the end of the default recipe: https://github.com/chef-cookbooks/aws/blob/master/recipes/default.rb#L26

[shortdudey123]

This allows the LWRP to be used without including the default recipe.

Use case 1: aws-sdk is already installed via another method (i.e. another recipe)
Use case 2: the default recipe is included in bootstrapping the host, then not included again

[miketheman]

I guess that's reasonable, but the cookbook explicitly states in it's usage that it expects the default recipe to be run prior to any library functions: https://github.com/chef-cookbooks/aws#defaultrb

I think that if the desire is to make it a better method for calling the code via LWRP without the default recipe (which, anecdotally, should be safe on every run, what's the danger of including it in a node's run list?), then this would probably be structured in a better manner to DRY up the invocations of require/rescue - it's pretty much repetition at this point.

[shortdudey123]

but the cookbook explicitly states in it's usage that it expects the default recipe to be run prior to any library functions

Fair enough :)
You can close this if always including the default recipe makes more sense on your end

[lamont-granquist]

Pulling the code from the recipe into the provider is correct.

Unless someone steps forward to actually do the work of DRY'ing up the requires in the library code, this should probably just get merged, otherwise we're blocking on nobody having enough time to clean it up right and making the perfect the enemy of the good.

👍 we should just ship this unless a better PR appears soon.

[thommay]

yeah, this is obviously the right thing to do for the cookbook's ergonomics. 👍