-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.7k
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
Additional VMSS properties (issues #1210 & #1226 #1209
Conversation
hey @djsly Thanks for opening this PR :) I've taken a look through and notice you haven't implemented any test cases for your changes. Can you please add some tests for the new properties you have exposed? Thanks! |
@jeffreyCline: Definitely. |
@jeffreyCline unit test added. |
/assign @tombuildsstuff |
/retest |
Hello @djsly, Thank you for this contribution, it seems that there currently are some issues with the tests:
|
Hi @katbyte thanks for reporting that! I think that I will need to review my IDE since it didn't give me the errors that you found... Same for the travis-ci ob and the The tests were updated accordingly. Hopefully all is good now. |
Hello @katbyte and @jeffreyCline , let me know if you guys need something else from my part. This is my first time I'm not fully up part with Harshicorp's PR process yet. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @djsly,
Thank you for opening this PR. Generally it looks good but I've left some comments in line.
However with respect to the vm_hostnames
, vm_statuses
and vm_primary_private_ip_addresses
properties we don't feel that the terraform resource is necessarily the right place to expose this data as they will constantly be changing as VMs in the scale set spin up and down.
@@ -583,6 +605,24 @@ func resourceArmVirtualMachineScaleSet() *schema.Resource { | |||
}, | |||
|
|||
"tags": tagsSchema(), | |||
|
|||
"vm_hostnames": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These properties do not make much sense to expose in a resource as they will always be changing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Where would you have them? Those are needed when not using the auto scaling feature of the scaleSet; therefore specifying a predefined number of VMs. We need to run remote-exec provisioner on the resulting VMs so the IP are important to us, as well as the hostnames since we pass the terraform output to a secondary script which consumes the hostnames.
Should we put this in a Datasource instead ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
starting a review as I need the feature (originally asked in the original issue #910)
Looking for a OK to implement this as a DataSource instead before starting the work
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@katbyte can I proceed with the DataSource implementation instead? will that fly by on your side ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@katbyte do you know if a data source can reference a resource that Terraform is creating ? or it only supports preexisting resources not managed by terraform?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@djsly, a datasource can reference anything you would like, terraform created or not. However you just have to make sure the graph knows about the dependancy by linking back to the terraform resource:
resource "r" "example" {
name = "name"
}
data "d" "example" {
name = "${r.example.name}"
}
With respect to these additional attributes can we please remove them from this PR? That really is separate task so lets move the discussion to the existing issue (#901) so my colleagues can weigh in 🙂
Thanks!
@@ -1317,7 +1441,19 @@ func expandAzureRmVirtualMachineScaleSetNetworkProfile(d *schema.ResourceData) * | |||
name := config["name"].(string) | |||
primary := config["primary"].(bool) | |||
acceleratedNetworking := config["accelerated_networking"].(bool) | |||
|
|||
ipForwarding := config["ip_forwarding"].(bool) | |||
dns_settings := config["dns_settings"].(*schema.Set).List()[0].(map[string]interface{}) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If the dns settings block doesn't exist this could fail. You should do a check:
if v := config["dns_settings"].(*schema.Set).List(); v.Len() > 0 {}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good catch @katbyte ! I have the fix Already since I got hit by that exact same problem :). I will be pushing over my changes soon after testing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I tested with and without the optional dns_settings block, all is working as expected now.
@@ -1409,6 +1545,8 @@ func expandAzureRmVirtualMachineScaleSetNetworkProfile(d *schema.ResourceData) * | |||
Primary: &primary, | |||
IPConfigurations: &ipConfigurations, | |||
EnableAcceleratedNetworking: &acceleratedNetworking, | |||
EnableIPForwarding: &ipForwarding, | |||
DNSSettings: &dnsSettings, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could we only set DNSSettings
to an object when dns_servers
is populated?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I will check if this is easily doable, but from the look of it, all other optional settings are always set: e.g. primary, acceleratedNetworking, etc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Generally we don't as some API's will break when empty objects are sent, its more a proactive choice to minimize that chance. It is easy enough by just creating the object above, and then only setting the field if required. However if the API is ok with an empty DNSSettings
object then its not a big deal.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I tested and the API support it , for now I left it the same.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍
* `network_security_group_id` - (Optional) Specifies the identifier for the network security group. | ||
* `accelerated_networking` - (Optional) Specifies whether to enable accelerated networking or not. Defaults to | ||
`false`. | ||
* `ip_forwarding` - (Optional) Specifies whether to enable ip forwarding or not. Defaults to |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could we move this up so the list is sorted alphabetically?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the list is currently not in any alphabetical order, want me to reorder the full list ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I ordered them in Required First, followed by Optional both following an alphabetical order.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fixed in next
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks! We usually sort required -> optional -> computed and then alphabetically with name location and resource group at the top.
@@ -352,9 +352,12 @@ resource "azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set" "test" { | |||
* `name` - (Required) Specifies the name of the network interface configuration. | |||
* `primary` - (Required) Indicates whether network interfaces created from the network interface configuration will be the primary NIC of the VM. | |||
* `ip_configuration` - (Required) An ip_configuration block as documented below | |||
* `dns_settings` - (Optional) An dns_settings block as documented below |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This line should end with a .
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
fixed in next
@@ -367,6 +370,10 @@ resource "azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set" "test" { | |||
* `public_ip_address_configuration` - (Optional) describes a virtual machines scale set IP Configuration's | |||
PublicIPAddress configuration. The public_ip_address_configuration is documented below. | |||
|
|||
`dns_settings` supports the following: | |||
|
|||
* `dns_servers` - (Required) Specifies an array of dns servers |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This line should end with a .
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
fixed in next
testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetSinglePlacementGroup("azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set.test", true), | ||
testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetIPForwarding("azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set.test", false), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Unless there is a good reason not to, I think we should be just checking the state here:
resource.TestCheckResourceAttr(resourceName, "ip_forwarding", "false"),
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For my personal knowledge, what is the difference between the current test VS checking for the state only? The current methods queries the API?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
After review, indeed the diff is an API call on the remote resource VS what terraform stored in its state.
I don't mind converting to resource.TestCheckResourceAttr
this will probably speed up the test
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
fixed in next
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks!
The reason for this is we want to verify that the create/update and read functions. If we call out to the API we are only checking one direction, and not ensuring that the provider read it back (or imported) into the state correctly.
@@ -24,9 +25,12 @@ func TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basic(t *testing.T) { | |||
Config: config, | |||
Check: resource.ComposeTestCheckFunc( | |||
testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetExists("azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set.test"), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
an aside as this is the way it was, we should probably set resourceName
to "azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set.test" and pass that around instead of hardcoding it everywhere
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can clean that up np.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
fixed in next
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you!
Config: config, | ||
Check: resource.ComposeTestCheckFunc( | ||
testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetExists(resource_name), | ||
testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetIPForwarding(resource_name, true), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
as above, unless there is a good reason to do this I think we should be just checking the state
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same reasoning as above, I will convert to state check to same on exec time
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
fixed in next
Config: config, | ||
Check: resource.ComposeTestCheckFunc( | ||
testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetExists(resource_name), | ||
testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetDNSSettings(resource_name, []string{"8.8.8.8", "8.8.4.4"}), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
as above, unless there is a good reason to do this I think we should be just checking the state
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same reasoning as above, I will convert to state check to same on exec time
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
fixed in next
@katbyte I have pushed all of the changes Except for the migration of the scale set properties to a data source. Waiting on your approval for acceptance to start the work. |
In case you missed it I left a comment inline, in short lets remove the computed fields as mentioned from this PR and move the discussion on creating a datasource for the to #901, thanks! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @djsly,
Thank you for moving those properties out! However I see you've added another ticket to the PR. It is best to not lump multiple issues into the same PR or change functionality during the review process unless necessary or the issues are tightly coupled.
The simpler the PRs can be the quicker we can review them 🙂
The priority
property is already being added by another community PR (#1249) so could we please remove it in favour of that on? Thanks.
ipForwarding := config["ip_forwarding"].(bool) | ||
|
||
dnsSettingsConfigs := config["dns_settings"].(*schema.Set).List() | ||
//(*schema.Set).List()[0].(map[string]interface{}) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there a reason this comment was left in?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
removed in next
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
good catch.
@@ -115,6 +115,12 @@ func resourceArmVirtualMachineScaleSet() *schema.Resource { | |||
ForceNew: true, | |||
}, | |||
|
|||
"priority": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There already exists a PR for this property predating this commit: #1250
Could we remove it in favour of that one please?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
sure, I saw it after I pushed. Since it didn't seem like the Original Author was responding I decided to keep it in here.
Removed in next.
@@ -12,6 +12,8 @@ import ( | |||
"github.com/hashicorp/terraform/terraform" | |||
) | |||
|
|||
const scaleSetResourceName = "azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set.test" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I understand the motive but as this ends up being a global constant we tend not to do this. Could we please revert this and use the existing pattern for consistency?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi Katy, this was updated per your request. You wanted to move the strings out of the tests into a single var. Please comment on which you are favoring, duplication or const var.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I updated the tests, they should be move self-content and unified now.
@@ -352,11 +354,18 @@ resource "azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set" "test" { | |||
|
|||
* `name` - (Required) Specifies the name of the network interface configuration. | |||
* `primary` - (Required) Indicates whether network interfaces created from the network interface configuration will be the primary NIC of the VM. | |||
* `ip_configuration` - (Required) An ip_configuration block as documented below | |||
* `ip_configuration` - (Required) An ip_configuration block as documented below. | |||
* `accelerated_networking` - (Optional) Specifies whether to enable accelerated networking or not. Defaults to |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
could we get this on a single line?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fixed in next
* `ip_configuration` - (Required) An ip_configuration block as documented below. | ||
* `accelerated_networking` - (Optional) Specifies whether to enable accelerated networking or not. Defaults to | ||
`false`. | ||
* `dns_settings` - (Optional) An dns_settings block as documented below. | ||
* `network_security_group_id` - (Optional) Specifies the identifier for the network security group. | ||
* `accelerated_networking` - (Optional) Specifies whether to enable accelerated networking or not. Defaults to |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems to be duplicated above
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
removed in next
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you for the updates, This LGTM! Provided the test pass I'll merge it shortly :)
One thing however, we manually update the change-log ourselves. As such I have reverted that change to expedite getting this in for you.
Super. Thanks. Sorry for the Changelog I wanted to accelerate as well :)
Do you guys prefer that we squash on the final rebase or since github does it for us now it is fine ?
… On May 23, 2018, at 5:03 PM, kt ***@***.***> wrote:
@katbyte approved this pull request.
@djsly,
Thank you for the updates, This LGTM! Provided the test pass I'll merge it shortly :)
One thing however, we manually update the change-log ourselves. As such I have reverted that change to expedite getting this in for you.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey @djsly,
Running the tests showed some errors so i am going to have to request more changes. Here are the errors:
------- Stdout: -------
=== RUN TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basic
--- FAIL: TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basic (358.21s)
testing.go:513: Step 0 error: Check failed: Check 2/6 error: azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set.test: Attribute 'vm_hostnames' expected to be set
FAIL
------- Stdout: -------
=== RUN TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicDNSSettings
--- FAIL: TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicDNSSettings (367.35s)
testing.go:513: Step 0 error: Check failed: Check 2/3 error: azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set.test: Attribute 'dns_settings.0.dns_servers.0' not found
FAIL
------- Stdout: -------
=== RUN TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicIPForwarding
--- FAIL: TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicIPForwarding (423.10s)
testing.go:513: Step 0 error: Check failed: Check 2/2 error: azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set.test: Attribute 'ip_forwarding' not found
FAIL
I've left some comments inline as well highlighting what i think some of the failures are caused by.
// single placement group should default to true | ||
testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetSinglePlacementGroup("azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set.test", true), | ||
testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetExists(resourceName), | ||
resource.TestCheckResourceAttrSet(resourceName, "vm_hostnames"), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These are testing attributes you have removed and causing tests to fail.
Config: config, | ||
Check: resource.ComposeTestCheckFunc( | ||
testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetExists(resourceName), | ||
resource.TestCheckResourceAttr(resourceName, "dns_settings.0.dns_servers.0", "8.8.8.8"), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You have dns_settings as a TypeSet
so the .0.
syntax will not work. You'll need to change to a TypeList
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hello @katbyte while this would help with the test, TypeSet is the right fit here since we can only have a single dns_settings
block. Same logic as for the network_profile
block.
While debugging I realized that using the
since the full string would be something like this, as you can see the dns_settings
and the ip_forwarding
are a child element of the network_profile
with TypeSet, therefore I won't be able to use the resource.TestCheckResourceAttr
logic unless you know of another method that supports sets
"network_profile.4108483151.ip_forwarding": "true",
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Typically unless there is a reason to, single element blocks like this are always a TypeList
as diffs are simpler, easier to get at the attributes and state migrations are not required when adding/changing the fields.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ok, while changing the dns_settings
to TypeList
will help, what should we do with network_profile
?
- convert to
TypeList
- find a way to generate the hash in the test.
"network_security_group_id": { | ||
Type: schema.TypeString, | ||
Optional: true, | ||
}, | ||
|
||
"dns_settings": { | ||
Type: schema.TypeSet, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Your tests are using the .0
list syntax while this is a TypeSet
. I suggest changing this to a a TypeList
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
using the same approach, I would need to convert the network_profile
to a TypeList
to allow the test to work. Is this acceptable? I feel that we are using the wrong data type for to be compatible with the test harness. Both dns_settings
and network_profile
should be Set with MaxItem = 1 in my opinion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yep! I would prefer a TypeList
here for the above reasons. A type set is only really useful when you have >1 item, order doesn't matter and duplicates are not allowed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
with your current description of TypeSet, network_profile
falls indeed into a TypeSet
. Therefore I won't be able to resource.TestCheckResourceAttr(resourceName, "network_profile.<hashstring>.dns_settings.0.dns_servers.0", "8.8.8.8"),
unless I try to generate the right hash.
network_profile - (Required) A collection of network profile block as documented below.
network_profile supports the following:
name - (Required) Specifies the name of the network interface configuration.
primary - (Required) Indicates whether network interfaces created from the network interface configuration will be the primary NIC of the VM.
ip_configuration - (Required) An ip_configuration block as documented below
network_security_group_id - (Optional) Specifies the identifier for the network security group.
accelerated_networking - (Optional) Specifies whether to enable accelerated networking or not. Defaults to false.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh i didn't realize there could be multiple network_profile
blocks, then yes in this case it should be a TypeSet
. I believe you can turn debug on to see the state during the tests to grab the actual hash to do a proper check.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fixed, network_profile
was kept a TypeSet
while dns_settings
was converted to a TypeList`, the ACCtests were updated accordingly
Sorry about that :( I Will try to setup myself for azure integration testing to avoid more errors
I’ll update the PR once my e2e are goods
Thanks Kate for looking into this.
… On May 23, 2018, at 5:48 PM, kt ***@***.***> wrote:
@katbyte requested changes on this pull request.
Hey @djsly,
Running the tests showed some errors so i am going to have to request more changes. Here are the errors:
------- Stdout: -------
=== RUN TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basic
--- FAIL: TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basic (358.21s)
testing.go:513: Step 0 error: Check failed: Check 2/6 error: azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set.test: Attribute 'vm_hostnames' expected to be set
FAIL
------- Stdout: -------
=== RUN TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicDNSSettings
--- FAIL: TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicDNSSettings (367.35s)
testing.go:513: Step 0 error: Check failed: Check 2/3 error: azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set.test: Attribute 'dns_settings.0.dns_servers.0' not found
FAIL
------- Stdout: -------
=== RUN TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicIPForwarding
--- FAIL: TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicIPForwarding (423.10s)
testing.go:513: Step 0 error: Check failed: Check 2/2 error: azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set.test: Attribute 'ip_forwarding' not found
FAIL
I've left some comments inline as well highlighting what i think some of the failures are caused by.
In azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set_test.go:
> @@ -23,18 +24,21 @@ func TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basic(t *testing.T) {
{
Config: config,
Check: resource.ComposeTestCheckFunc(
- testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetExists("azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set.test"),
-
- // single placement group should default to true
- testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetSinglePlacementGroup("azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set.test", true),
+ testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetExists(resourceName),
+ resource.TestCheckResourceAttrSet(resourceName, "vm_hostnames"),
These are testing attributes you have removed and causing tests to fail.
In azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set_test.go:
> +}
+
+func TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicDNSSettings(t *testing.T) {
+ resourceName := "azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set.test"
+ ri := acctest.RandInt()
+ config := testAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicDNSSettings(ri, testLocation())
+ resource.Test(t, resource.TestCase{
+ PreCheck: func() { testAccPreCheck(t) },
+ Providers: testAccProviders,
+ CheckDestroy: testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetDestroy,
+ Steps: []resource.TestStep{
+ {
+ Config: config,
+ Check: resource.ComposeTestCheckFunc(
+ testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetExists(resourceName),
+ resource.TestCheckResourceAttr(resourceName, "dns_settings.0.dns_servers.0", "8.8.8.8"),
You have dns_settings as a TypeSet so the .0. syntax will not work. You'll need to change to a TypeList
In azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set.go:
> "network_security_group_id": {
Type: schema.TypeString,
Optional: true,
},
+ "dns_settings": {
+ Type: schema.TypeSet,
Your tests are using the .0 list syntax while this is a TypeSet. I suggest changing this to a a TypeList
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
@katbyte ok I think it should all be good now
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM except taking one last look at the tests and noticed a strange failure. seems by switching to %[] format for some of the values in the format string and not for others introduced some bugs:
[14:09:29] kt@snowbook:~/hashi/..3../terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm$ make fmt; make testacc TEST=./azurerm TESTARGS=-test.run=TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicWindows_managedDisk_resize
gofmt -w $(find . -name '*.go' |grep -v vendor)
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./azurerm -v -test.run=TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicWindows_managedDisk_resize -timeout 180m
=== RUN TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicWindows_managedDisk_resize
--- FAIL: TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicWindows_managedDisk_resize (114.51s)
testing.go:513: Step 0 error: Error applying: 1 error(s) occurred:
* azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set.test: 1 error(s) occurred:
* azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set.test: compute.VirtualMachineScaleSetsClient#CreateOrUpdate: Failure sending request: StatusCode=400 -- Original Error: Code="InvalidParameter" Message="The requested VM size eastus is not available in the current region. The sizes available in the current region are: Standard_B1ms,Standard_B1s,Standard_B2ms,Standard_B2s,Standard_B4ms,Standard_B8ms,Standard_DS1_v2,Standard_DS2_v2,Standard_DS3_v2,Standard_DS4_v2,Standard_DS5_v2,Standard_DS11-1_v2,Standard_DS11_v2,Standard_DS12-1_v2,Standard_DS12-2_v2,Standard_DS12_v2,Standard_DS13-2_v2,Standard_DS13-4_v2,Standard_DS13_v2,Standard_DS14-4_v2,Standard_DS14-8_v2,Standard_DS14_v2,Standard_DS15_v2,Standard_DS2_v2_Promo,Standard_DS3_v2_Promo,Standard_DS4_v2_Promo,Standard_DS5_v2_Promo,Standard_DS11_v2_Promo,Standard_DS12_v2_Promo,Standard_DS13_v2_Promo,Standard_DS14_v2_Promo,Standard_F1s,Standard_F2s,Standard_F4s,Standard_F8s,Standard_F16s,Standard_D2s_v3,Standard_D4s_v3,Standard_D8s_v3,Standard_D16s_v3,Standard_D32s_v3,Standard_A0,Standard_A1,Standard_A2,Standard_A3,Standard_A5,Standard_A4,Standard_A6,Standard_A7,Basic_A0,Basic_A1,Basic_A2,Basic_A3,Basic_A4,Standard_D1_v2,Standard_D2_v2,Standard_D3_v2,Standard_D4_v2,Standard_D5_v2,Standard_D11_v2,Standard_D12_v2,Standard_D13_v2,Standard_D14_v2,Standard_D15_v2,Standard_D2_v2_Promo,Standard_D3_v2_Promo,Standard_D4_v2_Promo,Standard_D5_v2_Promo,Standard_D11_v2_Promo,Standard_D12_v2_Promo,Standard_D13_v2_Promo,Standard_D14_v2_Promo,Standard_F1,Standard_F2,Standard_F4,Standard_F8,Standard_F16,Standard_A1_v2,Standard_A2m_v2,Standard_A2_v2,Standard_A4m_v2,Standard_A4_v2,Standard_A8m_v2,Standard_A8_v2,Standard_D2_v3,Standard_D4_v3,Standard_D8_v3,Standard_D16_v3,Standard_D32_v3,Standard_H8,Standard_H16,Standard_H8m,Standard_H16m,Standard_H16r,Standard_H16mr,Standard_D1,Standard_D2,Standard_D3,Standard_D4,Standard_D11,Standard_D12,Standard_D13,Standard_D14,Standard_NV6,Standard_NV12,Standard_NV24,Standard_NC6s_v2,Standard_NC12s_v2,Standard_NC24rs_v2,Standard_NC24s_v2,Standard_NC6,Standard_NC12,Standard_NC24,Standard_NC24r,Standard_F2s_v2,Standard_F4s_v2,Standard_F8s_v2,Standard_F16s_v2,Standard_F32s_v2,Standard_F64s_v2,Standard_F72s_v2,Standard_DS1,Standard_DS2,Standard_DS3,Standard_DS4,Standard_DS11,Standard_DS12,Standard_DS13,Standard_DS14,Standard_D64_v3,Standard_D64s_v3,Standard_E2_v3,Standard_E4_v3,Standard_E8_v3,Standard_E16_v3,Standard_E32_v3,Standard_E64i_v3,Standard_E64_v3,Standard_E2s_v3,Standard_E4-2s_v3,Standard_E4s_v3,Standard_E8-2s_v3,Standard_E8-4s_v3,Standard_E8s_v3,Standard_E16-4s_v3,Standard_E16-8s_v3,Standard_E16s_v3,Standard_E32-8s_v3,Standard_E32-16s_v3,Standard_E32s_v3,Standard_E64-16s_v3,Standard_E64-32s_v3,Standard_E64is_v3,Standard_E64s_v3,Standard_NC6s_v3,Standard_NC12s_v3,Standard_NC24rs_v3,Standard_NC24s_v3,Standard_L8s_v2,Standard_L16s_v2,Standard_ND6s,Standard_ND12s,Standard_ND24rs,Standard_ND24s,Standard_A8,Standard_A9,Standard_A10,Standard_A11,Standard_M8-2ms,Standard_M8-4ms,Standard_M8ms,Standard_M16-4ms,Standard_M16-8ms,Standard_M16ms,Standard_M32-8ms,Standard_M32-16ms,Standard_M32ls,Standard_M32ms,Standard_M32ts,Standard_M64-16ms,Standard_M64-32ms,Standard_M64ls,Standard_M64ms,Standard_M64s,Standard_M128-32ms,Standard_M128-64ms,Standard_M128ms,Standard_M128s,Standard_M64,Standard_M64m,Standard_M128,Standard_M128m.\r\nFind out more on the available VM sizes in each region at https://aka.ms/azure-regions." Target="sku.name"
FAIL
FAIL github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/azurerm 114.543s
make: *** [testacc] Error 1
Changing the %s
s to %[#]s
seems to fix the issue:
[14:11:41] kt@snowbook:~/hashi/..3../terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm$ make fmt; make testacc TEST=./azurerm TESTARGS=-test.run=TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicWindows_managedDisk_resize
gofmt -w $(find . -name '*.go' |grep -v vendor)
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./azurerm -v -test.run=TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicWindows_managedDisk_resize -timeout 180m
=== RUN TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicWindows_managedDisk_resize
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicWindows_managedDisk_resize (581.52s)
PASS
ok github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/azurerm 581.554s
[16:30:49] kt@snowbook:~/hashi/..3../terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm$
If your going to change all of them to the index format, could you place switch every placeholder to have the positional argument.
here is the change i made:
[16:50:42] kt@snowbook:~/hashi/..3../terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm$ git diff
diff --git a/azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set_test.go b/azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set_test.go
index 54e017d8..0f196e51 100644
--- a/azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set_test.go
+++ b/azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set_test.go
@@ -2256,7 +2256,7 @@ func testAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicWindows_managedDisk(rInt int, loc
return fmt.Sprintf(`
resource "azurerm_resource_group" "test" {
name = "acctestRG-%[1]d"
- location = "%s"
+ location = "%[2]s"
}
resource "azurerm_virtual_network" "test" {
@@ -2280,7 +2280,7 @@ resource "azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set" "test" {
upgrade_policy_mode = "Manual"
sku {
- name = "%s"
+ name = "%[3]s"
tier = "Standard"
capacity = 2
}
[16:50:44] kt@snowbook:~/hashi/..3../terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm$
Thanks @katbyte , it will teach me to read the DOC on more details when using new syntax that I'm not used too (copying other's people code can do that ...)
|
and the following which seems to be a known issue.
|
@katbyte I pushed a fix for the test that was failling.
|
DataSource cannot be used with resources that are managed within the same run unless you specify a |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you for fixing that! LGTM now 👍
Hey @djsly, Just a friendly heads up 1.7 including this PR has been released ! |
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! |
Fix for #1210 and #1226