-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
set ignore_read for noRemoveDataDisk #4403
Conversation
Hello! I am a robot who works on Magic Modules PRs. I have detected that you are a community contributor, so your PR will be assigned to someone with a commit-bit on this repo for initial review. Thanks for your contribution! A human will be with you soon. @melinath, please review this PR or find an appropriate assignee. |
I have triggered VCR tests based on this PR's diffs. See the results here: "https://ci-oss.hashicorp.engineering/viewQueued.html?itemId=167150" |
I have triggered VCR tests in RECORDING mode for the following tests that failed during VCR: TestAccDataSourceGoogleServiceAccountIdToken_impersonation|TestAccActiveDirectoryDomainTrust_activeDirectoryDomainTrustBasicExample|TestAccApigeeOrganization_apigeeOrganizationCloudFullTestExample|TestAccCloudRunService_cloudRunServiceMultipleEnvironmentVariablesExample You can view the result here: "https://ci-oss.hashicorp.engineering/viewQueued.html?itemId=167240" |
Hi Edward! I'm not familiar with this resource, so please bear with me :-) My understanding is that ignore_read is primarily intended for situations where the return value isn't useful for some reason (like secrets). It seems like it would also prevent a permadiff in this case - but I'm concerned that we might be ignoring a diff that is real and the result of some other bug. I.e. if the value isn't being set correctly remotely, why is that? Is it safe to ignore? The user also reported their main concern being that updating |
@melinath the key problem here is API does not return |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Gotcha - that makes sense! Looking at the API and comparing it to the terraform.yaml file, it seems like all the "input only" fields have been marked ignore_read
. That seems like it's an API bug to not let us read those fields out but I guess that's how it is 😂 thanks :-)
(Also since no_remove_data_disk is input only, it makes sense that changing it would force new.)
This LGTM, though it would be nice to have a test that would have caught this issue.
Fixes hashicorp/terraform-provider-google#8216
If this PR is for Terraform, I acknowledge that I have:
make test
andmake lint
to ensure it passes unit and linter tests.Release Note Template for Downstream PRs (will be copied)