-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.6k
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
Cycle error on module output/input when input used in destroy provisioner #14548
Comments
I have the same issue, plan and apply work fine, plan -destroy and apply gives cycle errors. |
(v0.9.8) This issue is still present and rather detrimental to clean up. |
Just ran into this issue. |
(v0.9.11) Same here |
Getting this as well... 0.9.11 |
Same issue on 0.10.8 |
I'm hitting it on 0.11.1. I was able to get around it by issuing destroy target=(one of the two it says is a cycle), then the other. |
same, v0.11.7 |
I see the same on v0.11.8 but with apply when a new resource is required (destroy then create) - Custom provider which works when no provisioner used.
On apply the "aci_fvAp" "name" which causes a new resource to be created on apply, cycle occurs
Terraform v0.11.8
|
Same issue on v0.12.0 and v0.12.1 |
Yes, same issue here, also happen when i change and re-apply. |
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 have found a problem that seems similar to this, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further. |
It seems this issue i'm running into should have been fixed by 1835/1855. However, I am still getting a cycle when I have two modules, one with an output that the other is taking as an input. The only thing that I can tell differentiates me from 1835/1855 is that the input is used in a destroy provisioner.
Given:
main.tf
a_module/main.tf
b_module/main.tf
Apply works
Destroy calls Cycle!
Could the destroy graph just destroy the one with destroy provisioners first?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: