This message was deleted.

Thanks Shamil, I don’t really have a good ETA on usage file support in the extension. Mainly because we haven’t figured out how best to offer support for it in the extension. It gets a little tricky when users are using a multi-project vscode workspace.

What would be the simplest thing we could do? Default to

infracost-usage.yml

so if that exists in the dir where Infracost is executing from, it would use that file?

Yup that’s the most simple approach, but would mean this would change to the default behaviour for the CLI

It’s a backward compatible, right? I say this as other users have asked for that but they’ve been able to workaround it, whereas with the vscode extension it doesn’t seem like there’s a work around? Another option could be having an env var “INFRACOST_USAGE_FILE” (which goes along the path of env vars should have config file and flag options)

INFRACOST_USAGE_FILE

will be problematic for multi-project workspaces that use different usage files namings. The most robust solution is to allow users to specify the infracost usage files through the editor. But this is a bit tricky as we basically have to detect the projects and dynamically build the configuration options available to them in the UI. Then persist that information across workspace opens. I think the easiest and best solution for now is to default to

infracost-usage.yml

as detected by default. However, we need to update docs to let users know that this is the case for auto-detection.

@swift-byte-80833 would defaulting to

infracost-usage.yml

solve your problem? so in each repo/dir, you’d have that file and it would always be applied if it’s present, though you could comment-out the contents if you don’t want that to be applied.

Possibly, I need to think about it and verify

Great! Feel free to create the github issue after that, or ping us back here for more discussion and we can create a github issue to track it.