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

Add setting to stop google_project_services from being deleted #5

Closed
danielcompton opened this issue Jun 11, 2017 · 1 comment · Fixed by #965
Closed

Add setting to stop google_project_services from being deleted #5

danielcompton opened this issue Jun 11, 2017 · 1 comment · Fixed by #965
Assignees

Comments

@danielcompton
Copy link
Contributor

danielcompton commented Jun 11, 2017

I'm really enjoying using Google Cloud with Terraform. So far the only blemish has been the wait time for provisioning and removing services, and more generally having to deal with and think about them at all.

I have specified the services my project requires with google_project_services so they are created the first time I provision a project. However if I destroy all the resources in my project and then recreate them (with skip_delete on the project itself), most of my time is spent waiting for the project services to be destroyed and recreated.

I could just keep the project services out of my Terraform config, but then they wouldn't get created when I'm making a new project (say a temporary staging project).

What are your thoughts on adding a setting for google_project_services which provides accumulate only behaviour? It would add any missing services specified in the terraform config, but never delete any which were extra in the console, even when the resource is being destroyed. It also would only show a diff if there were services to create. This is similar to the google_project setting skip_delete, but I think a different name would be required here, perhaps accumulate_only?

If project service APIs took seconds to provision and remove then this probably wouldn't be necessary, but I suspect this would be the easier change to make 😄.

@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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants