Skip to content
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

data_disk_attachment implementation help #1441

Closed
rohrerb opened this issue Jun 25, 2018 · 4 comments
Closed

data_disk_attachment implementation help #1441

rohrerb opened this issue Jun 25, 2018 · 4 comments

Comments

@rohrerb
Copy link
Contributor

rohrerb commented Jun 25, 2018

This is in reference to testing the following PR - #1207 (Working great so far! Thank you @tombuildsstuff )

The goal would be to build out an environment with more than 2 VMs with X data disks. It works perfectly using this TF file - https://gist.github.com/rohrerb/0cac6f3b24691674538067fd491c460d

Builds out the following:
https://imgur.com/hS8bb1X

Once the environment is built, increment the variable for data_disk_count from "1" to "2" and re-run a plan.

variable "data_disk_count" { default = 2}

You will see that it wants to destroy the the 2nd VM disk because the element changed based on the new count.index. I know that AWS has had attached disk logic for a while and im hoping that someone figured out how to apply this sort of logic.

@tombuildsstuff
Copy link
Contributor

@rohrerb thanks for this feedback - since this isn't an issue with the AzureRM Provider directly (but instead an issue with Terraform Core) I'm going to close this issue for the moment

@rohrerb
Copy link
Contributor Author

rohrerb commented Jun 27, 2018

@tombuildsstuff - Is something similar open in TF Core?

@tombuildsstuff
Copy link
Contributor

@rohrerb I have a feeling this should be fixed by the next major version of Terraform - it may well be worth opening an issue specifically about this on that repository however to be able to subscribe to updates :)

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 30, 2020

I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues.

If you feel this issue should be reopened, we encourage creating a new issue linking back to this one for added context. If you feel I made an error 🤖 🙉 , please reach out to my human friends 👉 [email protected]. Thanks!

@ghost ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 30, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants