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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

PATCH 0043-Revert-Merge-pull-request-35671-from-hashicorp-b-lb-.patch #3723

Closed
t0yv0 opened this issue Mar 25, 2024 · 7 comments · Fixed by #4083
Closed

PATCH 0043-Revert-Merge-pull-request-35671-from-hashicorp-b-lb-.patch #3723

t0yv0 opened this issue Mar 25, 2024 · 7 comments · Fixed by #4083
Assignees
@t0yv0
Labels
area/patch An issue describing an existing patch on upstream and the criteria to close it. kind/engineering Work that is not visible to an external user resolution/fixed This issue was fixed

Comments

@t0yv0
Copy link
Member

t0yv0 commented Mar 25, 2024

0043-Revert-Merge-pull-request-35671-from-hashicorp-b-lb-.patch

This also reverts a bridge bug temporarily.
@t0yv0 t0yv0 added the area/patch An issue describing an existing patch on upstream and the criteria to close it. label Mar 25, 2024
@mjeffryes mjeffryes added the kind/engineering Work that is not visible to an external user label Mar 26, 2024
@t0yv0
Copy link
Member Author

t0yv0 commented May 20, 2024

This reverts hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws#35671

There is an open claim that this PR introduced hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws#36459 which is still open upstream.

@t0yv0
Copy link
Member Author

t0yv0 commented May 20, 2024

#3426 introduced this

@t0yv0
Copy link
Member Author

t0yv0 commented May 20, 2024 •
edited
Loading

I'm revisiting this today because @corymhall is running into this patch creating friction in the routine update (#3959).

It looks like we are not yet ready to remove it, @VenelinMartinov can you confirm if you have a good tracking issue in the bridge or should I create one based on this patch? It looks like an observable discrepancy in Read between bridged and TF proper, in what the provider implementation is able to observe in cty.Value somewhere.

@VenelinMartinov
Copy link
Contributor

I believe #3427 tracks this patch but it looks like I didn't name it correctly.

The corresponding issue in the bridge is pulumi/pulumi-terraform-bridge#1767 which I suspect is also fixed by pulumi/pulumi-terraform-bridge#1971 but I have not got around to confirming that.

@t0yv0
Copy link
Member Author

t0yv0 commented May 21, 2024

That's excellent! We are in no particular rush here but tracking the issues helps as we can revisit this on some schedule to try closing when prerequisites are met. Thanks!

@VenelinMartinov
Copy link
Contributor

We might need to enrol the lb resources into PlanResourceChange for them to pick up pulumi/pulumi-terraform-bridge#1971.

That should be available in the next bridge release.

@pierskarsenbarg pierskarsenbarg mentioned this issue Jun 14, 2024
Closed
@t0yv0 t0yv0 mentioned this issue Jun 14, 2024
Merged
@t0yv0 t0yv0 closed this as completed in c09a414 Jun 26, 2024
@pulumi-bot pulumi-bot added resolution/fixed This issue was fixed labels Jun 26, 2024
@pulumi-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This issue has been addressed in PR #4083 and shipped in release v6.42.0.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@t0yv0 t0yv0

Labels
area/patch An issue describing an existing patch on upstream and the criteria to close it. kind/engineering Work that is not visible to an external user resolution/fixed This issue was fixed
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Fix unexpected alb.Listener target group refresh pulumi/pulumi-aws
4 participants
@t0yv0 @mjeffryes @VenelinMartinov @pulumi-bot