The dreaded .... The "for_each" value depends on resource attributes that cannot be determined until apply

We run a wacky distributed resource environment here that generally doesn’t let us use our LDAP as an input. As such, I get to do most of this provisioning via a module that creates the requisite team objects, etc. in various services.

In previous iterations, I had the module vars set up as a series of List variables for each role type containing Github repository ids. That worked okay, but was kinda ugly as it also resulted in a count() based set of github_team_repositories per role. In trying to make things more “elegant”, I attempted to convert the set of arrays to a map of arrays and then use a combination of a local variable and a single foreach based github_team_repository.

But it fails with the dreaded “for_each” value error, which baffles me.

Given a variable like:

  internal-github-repositories = {
    developer = [,
    view = [,
    admin = [,

my supporting locals

  project-roles = [

  internal-github-repos = toset(distinct(flatten([
    for role in local.project-roles: [
      for repo in lookup(var.internal-github-repositories, role,[]): "${var.project-name}-internal-${role}:${repo}"

and my github_team_repository resource…

resource "github_team_repository" "internal-team" {
  for_each = local.internal-github-repos
  team_id =  lookup(github_team.internal-team, element(split(":", each.key), 0), "" ).id
  repository = element(split(":", each.key), 1)
  permission = lookup(local.role-to-github-permission, 
    element(split("-", element(split(":", each.key), 0)), length(split( "-",element(split(":", each.key), 0)))-1),"pull" )

The error is tossed against local.pass-internal-github-repos which if you look at it, is a all populated by a module input or a local lookup.

Is this just broken or is there something insanely simple I have missed.

Found my stupid. Overly trusted my inputs. I stacked a couple of outputs on the locals and found members had “to be determined” in the middle of some of the tuples.

Oops. :slight_smile: