simplify multi-secret declaration per provider

[talbx]

When you rely on one provider for a vast amount of secrets, making them all available gets a little bit tedious:

[providers.akv]
type = "azure-sm"
vault_url = "https://my.vault.azure.net/"

[secrets.MY_CLIENT_ID]
provider = "akv"
value = "my-client-id"

[secrets.MY_CLIENT_SECRET]
provider = "akv"
value = "my-client-secret"

... # imagine doing that for like 30 secrets

It would be helpful if you could declare multiple secrets at once like this:

[providers.akv]
type = "azure-sm"
vault_url = "https://my.vault.azure.net/"

[secretlist.AKV_LIST]
provider = "akv"
values = [
  "my-client-id",
  "my-client-secret"
  ]

or if all remote secrets could be fetched directly without declaring them at all but just by setting a flag or something similar to indicate that you want to access all of them like

[providers.akv]
type = "azure-sm"
vault_url = "https://my.vault.azure.net/"
load_all = true # default false

both resulting in

 Key                                         Type                  Provider Key                              Description
 MY_CLIENT_ID                      provider (akv)  my-client-id
 MY_CLIENT_SECRET            provider (akv)  my-client-secret

Option 3: Import from provider, e.g fnox import --provider azure-sm --all

[jdx]

you can leave the provider out if there is only one. You can also just rewrite the toml to look like this:

[secrets]
MY_CLIENT_ID = {value = "my-client-id"}
MY_CLIENT_SECRET = {value = "my-client-secret"}

[talbx]

nice! am I blind or is there no such thing in the official docs?

[aslafy-z]

This is a toml feature, it renders to the same data structure than the one you sent in OP

[smithjw]

@jdx the one issue I've found with listing secrets like this, is that as soon as you use fnox set, the entire file is reformatted to the more verbose example of listing out individual secrets with references to their provider.

Is there anything that can be done to prevent this reformatting?

[jdx]

toml-edit needs to be configured to use the inline variant

[Heartnett]

@jdx I think @talbx 's Option 3 would be a great feature. Otherwise, lots of time wasted (re)defining/importing these secrets one-by-one, when you really just need all of them for that use-case.

@jdx Also, mise and fnox are great! Thank you for these amazing tools!