Cosmos ip_range_filter argument broken after azurerm provider version 1.4

[Phydeauxman]

Terraform Version

Terraform v0.11.7
provider.azurerm v1.4.0

Affected Resource(s)

azurerm_cosmosdb_account

Terraform Configuration Files

resource azurerm_cosmosdb_account "cdb" {
  name                = "${var.cdba_name}"
  resource_group_name = "${azurerm_resource_group.rg.name}"
  location            = "${azurerm_resource_group.rg.location}"
  offer_type          = "Standard"
  kind                = "GlobalDocumentDB"
  ip_range_filter     = "${var.vnet_address_space},1.2.3.4,5.6.7.8,9.1.4.7,8.3.6.9,8.2.5.4,0.0.0.0"
  depends_on          = ["azurerm_resource_group.rg"]

  consistency_policy {
    consistency_level       = "Session"
    max_interval_in_seconds = 5
    max_staleness_prefix    = 100
  }

  geo_location {
    location          = "${azurerm_resource_group.rg.location}"
    failover_priority = 0
  }
}

Expected Behavior

The resource creates successfully

Actual Behavior

When we upgraded from 1.4 to 1.7 of the provider, the ip_range_filter value started throwing the error below. We tried reverting to version 1.6 but still got the same error. Had to revert to 1.4 for it to create successfully again:

Error: azurerm_cosmosdb_account.cdb: invalid value for ip_range_filter (Cosmos DB ip_range_filter must be a set of CIDR IP addresses separated by commas with no spaces: '10.0.0.1,10.0.0.2')

Steps to Reproduce

Run terraform -plan with config using azurerm provider 1.6 or 1.7

[katbyte]

Hi @Phydeauxman,

What is the value you are passing into the ip_range_filter? is ${var.vnet_address_space} potentially empty some of the time leading to an empty element in the comma separated list?

[Phydeauxman]

@katbyte the value is 10.20.0.0/16. It is defined in my variables.tf file. I can literally put the line version = "1.4.0" in my main.tf and it works fine. Change that to version = "1.6.0" or version = "1.7.0", run terraform init, and now terraform plan fails with the error I indicated.

[katbyte]

@Phydeauxman,

That is definitely a bug in the properties validation, thank you for letting us know!

I've pushed a fix for 1.9 via #1463

[ghost]

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!