Failing test(s): TestAccComputeHaVpnGateway_computeHaVpnGatewayEncryptedInterconnectExample

[melinath]

Affected Resource(s)

• google_compute_ha_vpn_gateway

Failure rate:

• 100% since Mar 22, 2022
• Still 100% as of June 16 2022

Impacted tests:

• TestAccComputeHaVpnGateway_computeHaVpnGatewayEncryptedInterconnectExample

Nightly builds:

• https://ci-oss.hashicorp.engineering/buildConfiguration/GoogleCloud_ProviderGoogleCloudGoogleProject/279518?buildTab=tests&expandedTest=2606106664151482317

Message:

Error: Error creating HaVpnGateway: googleapi: Error 412: Interconnect Attachments tf-test-test-interconnect-attachment1nbyar2cux3 must be in active state., conditionNotMet

[melinath]

Still 100%

[AarshDhokai]

Still 100% failure in Google Cloud and Google Cloud Beta

[AarshDhokai]

b/263128601

[roaks3]

Confirmed with a 2 minute sleep that this does not appear to be a timing issue. The Interconnect attachments end up in a PENDING_PARTNER state, which means that the user is supposed to manually work with the third-party partner to move the attachment toward the ACTIVE state.

Per GoogleCloudPlatform/magic-modules#4777 it appears that this test might have passed at one point, and I'm wondering if there is internal setup we can use to get this test to pass.

[roaks3]

@slevenick do you recall where this test might have come from, or what might have changed since it was added? I'm not noticing any pre-existing infrastructure that was used to get it to run, so I'm wondering how it was able to pass.

[slevenick]

It did pass at one point. I think success depends on having the project allowlisted for the feature, as interconnect is pretty tricky to get working. Not sure what would have changed to make it fail, maybe new restrictions in the API level to check that the interconnect is active?

[roaks3]

Ah ok, that would make sense. Sounds like we may have to touch base with their team internally to determine the best way to test this. I believe the feature itself is still properly enabled for the project, and I created a follow-up to do the same for new projects: b/268533439.

Since it could take some time to determine an appropriate test configuration, and this error is easily reproducible, I'm going to skip the test while we work through that.