personal overrides don’t seem to update secrets that reference that override, our use case EXPO_PUBLIC_SITE_URL is referencing SITE_URL because it needs EXPO_PUBLIC as prefix, but we don’t want to use the var with EXPO_PUBLIC prefix everywhere. if i override SITE_URL personally EXPO_PUBLIC_SITE_URL is not updated as personal. Is this a bug?

Hi @Niklas Raab, Are you using an SDK or the api directly? If you are using the API directly, may I ask which version you are using (v3 or v4)?

Hi Daniel, thanks for the quick response. I’m using the Infisical CLI (version 0.43.77), specifically

infisical run

and

infisical secrets set

with

--type personal

. Going through the default CLI endpoint, so v3 of the API (

/api/v3/secrets/raw/...

based on the error responses I see). I just reproduced it with a minimal test case in the same project/env (

dev

): Set shared

CLAUDE_TEST_BASE=shared-value

Set shared

CLAUDE_TEST_REF=${CLAUDE_TEST_BASE}

→ resolves to

shared-value

✅ 1. Personal-override

CLAUDE_TEST_BASE=personal-value

2. Read both:

HNAME               VALUE           TYPE
CLAUDE_TEST_BASE   personal-value  personal
CLAUDE_TEST_REF    shared-value    shared

Same result via

infisical run --env=dev --command '…'

— the process sees

BASE=personal-value

but

REF=shared-value

. So

${CLAUDE_TEST_BASE}

interpolation inside

CLAUDE_TEST_REF

is resolving against the shared value, ignoring my personal override. Our real case:

EXPO_PUBLIC_SITE_BASE_URL=${SITE_BASE_URL}

. When I personally override

SITE_BASE_URL

(e.g. from a Cloudflare tunnel script),

EXPO_PUBLIC_SITE_BASE_URL

keeps pointing at the shared value, which defeats the purpose of the override since the Expo app only reads the

EXPO_PUBLIC_*

variant.

We're actively looking into this and we will have it released as soon as possible; as soon as we have an update for you, we'll be sure to let you know!

any update?

Hi @Niklas Raab, we're still looking to roll out the v4 routes to the CLI. It's on our roadmap and we expect to pick it up in the coming weeks!

Hi @Niklas Raab Just want to let you know that the V4 support in cli for has been released in version v0.43.99

omg i was just ducktaping around that bug again then i saw your message, so happy 🙂 followup question: vercel secret sync doesn’t seem to exist as a terraform resource. what’s going on there?

Hi @Niklas Raab. I will check with the team to see about adding support for those two resources and will let you know as soon as I have an update for you!

also terraform infisical_app_connection_github only supports personal access token, but i don’t want to tie my personal gh account to this, there should be a way to connect a service user right either i am missing something or terraform is wildly incomplete

The fine-grained access feature for the GitHub App connection was recently added, and you can enable it by selecting the

GitHub App

option as outlined in our docs: https://infisical.com/docs/integrations/app-connections/github We'll look into getting this supported in the Terraform provider and will create a ticket to track it. Sorry for the inconveniences.

Hi @adilson, will the terraform resources be added in the future or am i building on something abandonded?

Hi @Niklas Raab, thank you for reaching out. The reason that we're only allowing PATs in Terraform at the moment, is that the other options such as Github App & OAuth currently require a web-based setup, which wouldn't flow well in via. Terraform. Another approach would be to first create the app connection in Infisical UI, and then import it into Terraform state; would that be a viable option for you?

I am sorry, I wasn't clear. I was talking about Railway and Vercel Secret sync 😅

Thank you for the clarification! You mean that you're looking for the railway and Vercel secret sync to be added into our terraform provider?

Exactly 🙂

Thank you @Niklas Raab, we're tracking this internally and I'll let you know once we have an update for you!

so you intent to add vercel and railway secret sync terraform providers at some point, without commiting to a timeline? or do you NOT intend to add those?

Hi @Niklas Raab, we do intend on adding these providers to Terraform, and we're aiming to have this released within a couple of weeks.

cool thanks! amazing product by the way

Appreciate the kind words! 🙌