Additional VMSS properties (issues #1210 & #1226 #1209

djsly · 2018-05-07T15:18:21Z

Add the support for dns_servers when creating a VMScaleSet
add the support for ip_forwarding when creating a VMScaleSet

WodansSon · 2018-05-07T21:34:44Z

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!

djsly · 2018-05-07T23:47:23Z

@jeffreyCline: Definitely.

djsly · 2018-05-11T13:02:08Z

@jeffreyCline unit test added.

djsly · 2018-05-11T13:02:34Z

/assign @tombuildsstuff

djsly · 2018-05-11T15:48:40Z

/retest

katbyte · 2018-05-11T18:56:40Z

Hello @djsly,

Thank you for this contribution, it seems that there currently are some issues with the tests:

azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set_test.go:1292: Sprintf call needs 8 args but has 9 args
azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set_test.go:1377: Sprintf call needs 8 args but has 9 args

djsly · 2018-05-11T21:04:50Z

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 make test :(

The tests were updated accordingly.

Hopefully all is good now.

djsly · 2018-05-14T14:36:34Z

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.

katbyte

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.

katbyte · 2018-05-14T23:22:23Z

azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set.go

@@ -583,6 +605,24 @@ func resourceArmVirtualMachineScaleSet() *schema.Resource {
 			},

 			"tags": tagsSchema(),
+
+			"vm_hostnames": {


These properties do not make much sense to expose in a resource as they will always be changing.

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 ?

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

@katbyte can I proceed with the DataSource implementation instead? will that fly by on your side ?

@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?

@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!

katbyte · 2018-05-14T23:26:17Z

azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set.go

@@ -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{})


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 {}

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.

I tested with and without the optional dns_settings block, all is working as expected now.

katbyte · 2018-05-16T00:44:42Z

azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set.go

@@ -1409,6 +1545,8 @@ func expandAzureRmVirtualMachineScaleSetNetworkProfile(d *schema.ResourceData) *
 				Primary:                     &primary,
 				IPConfigurations:            &ipConfigurations,
 				EnableAcceleratedNetworking: &acceleratedNetworking,
+				EnableIPForwarding:          &ipForwarding,
+				DNSSettings:                 &dnsSettings,


Could we only set DNSSettings to an object when dns_servers is populated?

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.

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.

I tested and the API support it , for now I left it the same.

katbyte · 2018-05-16T00:45:38Z

website/docs/r/virtual_machine_scale_set.html.markdown

 * `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


Could we move this up so the list is sorted alphabetically?

the list is currently not in any alphabetical order, want me to reorder the full list ?

I ordered them in Required First, followed by Optional both following an alphabetical order.

Fixed in next

Thanks! We usually sort required -> optional -> computed and then alphabetically with name location and resource group at the top.

katbyte · 2018-05-16T00:45:56Z

website/docs/r/virtual_machine_scale_set.html.markdown

@@ -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


This line should end with a .

fixed in next

katbyte · 2018-05-16T00:46:18Z

website/docs/r/virtual_machine_scale_set.html.markdown

@@ -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


This line should end with a .

fixed in next

katbyte · 2018-05-16T04:45:02Z

azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set_test.go

 					testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetSinglePlacementGroup("azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set.test", true),
+					testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetIPForwarding("azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set.test", false),


Unless there is a good reason not to, I think we should be just checking the state here:

resource.TestCheckResourceAttr(resourceName, "ip_forwarding", "false"),

For my personal knowledge, what is the difference between the current test VS checking for the state only? The current methods queries the API?

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

fixed in next

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.

katbyte · 2018-05-16T04:46:24Z

azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set_test.go

@@ -24,9 +25,12 @@ func TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basic(t *testing.T) {
 				Config: config,
 				Check: resource.ComposeTestCheckFunc(
 					testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetExists("azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set.test"),


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

I can clean that up np.

fixed in next

katbyte · 2018-05-16T04:47:34Z

azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set_test.go

+				Config: config,
+				Check: resource.ComposeTestCheckFunc(
+					testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetExists(resource_name),
+					testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetIPForwarding(resource_name, true),


as above, unless there is a good reason to do this I think we should be just checking the state

Same reasoning as above, I will convert to state check to same on exec time

fixed in next

katbyte · 2018-05-16T04:47:40Z

azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set_test.go

+				Config: config,
+				Check: resource.ComposeTestCheckFunc(
+					testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetExists(resource_name),
+					testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetDNSSettings(resource_name, []string{"8.8.8.8", "8.8.4.4"}),


as above, unless there is a good reason to do this I think we should be just checking the state

Same reasoning as above, I will convert to state check to same on exec time

fixed in next

djsly · 2018-05-17T20:52:55Z

@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.

katbyte · 2018-05-19T06:01:44Z

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!

djsly · 2018-05-22T16:41:01Z

@katbyte I removed the code change for #901 and added the support for priority

katbyte

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.

katbyte · 2018-05-23T06:24:15Z

azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set.go

+		ipForwarding := config["ip_forwarding"].(bool)
+
+		dnsSettingsConfigs := config["dns_settings"].(*schema.Set).List()
+		//(*schema.Set).List()[0].(map[string]interface{})


Is there a reason this comment was left in?

removed in next

good catch.

katbyte · 2018-05-23T06:59:24Z

azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set.go

@@ -115,6 +115,12 @@ func resourceArmVirtualMachineScaleSet() *schema.Resource {
 				ForceNew: true,
 			},

+			"priority": {


There already exists a PR for this property predating this commit: #1250

Could we remove it in favour of that one please?

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.

katbyte · 2018-05-23T07:02:23Z

azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set_test.go

@@ -12,6 +12,8 @@ import (
 	"github.com/hashicorp/terraform/terraform"
 )

+const scaleSetResourceName = "azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set.test"


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?

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.

I updated the tests, they should be move self-content and unified now.

katbyte · 2018-05-23T07:03:21Z

website/docs/r/virtual_machine_scale_set.html.markdown

@@ -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


could we get this on a single line?

Fixed in next

katbyte · 2018-05-23T07:04:11Z

website/docs/r/virtual_machine_scale_set.html.markdown

+* `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


This seems to be duplicated above

removed in next

katbyte

@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.

djsly · 2018-05-23T21:39:18Z

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.

katbyte

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.

katbyte · 2018-05-23T21:43:08Z

azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set_test.go

-					// 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.

katbyte · 2018-05-23T21:43:59Z

azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set_test.go

+				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

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",

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.

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.

katbyte · 2018-05-23T21:45:13Z

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Fixed, network_profile was kept a TypeSet while dns_settings was converted to a TypeList`, the ACCtests were updated accordingly

djsly · 2018-05-23T23:17:11Z

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.

djsly · 2018-05-29T22:03:02Z

@katbyte ok I think it should all be good now

17:39 $ make testacc TEST=./azurerm TESTARGS='-run=TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicDNSSettings'
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./azurerm -v -run=TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicDNSSettings -timeout 180m
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicDNSSettings
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicDNSSettings (433.41s)
PASS
ok      github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/azurerm       433.438s

17:33 $ make testacc TEST=./azurerm TESTARGS='-run=TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicIPForwarding'
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./azurerm -v -run=TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicIPForwarding -timeout 180m
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicIPForwarding
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicIPForwarding (346.28s)
PASS
ok      github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/azurerm       346.318s

katbyte

@djsly,

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 %ss 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$

djsly · 2018-06-05T11:06:19Z

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 ...)

Explicit argument indexes:

In Printf, Sprintf, and Fprintf, the default behavior is for each formatting verb to format successive arguments passed in the call. However, the notation [n] immediately before the verb indicates that the nth one-indexed argument is to be formatted instead. The same notation before a '*' for a width or precision selects the argument index holding the value. After processing a bracketed expression [n], subsequent verbs will use arguments n+1, n+2, etc. unless otherwise directed.

djsly · 2018-06-05T12:37:36Z

08:11 $ make testacc TEST=./azurerm TESTARGS='-run=TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicWindows_managedDisk'
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./azurerm -v -run=TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicWindows_managedDisk -timeout 180m
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicWindows_managedDisk
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicWindows_managedDisk (533.03s)
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicWindows_managedDisk_resize
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_basicWindows_managedDisk_resize (638.28s)
PASS
ok      github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/azurerm       1171.337s

and the following which seems to be a known issue.

07:35 $ make testacc TEST=./azurerm TESTARGS='-run=TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_customImage'
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./azurerm -v -run=TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_customImage -timeout 180m
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_customImage
--- FAIL: TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_customImage (239.23s)
        testing.go:513: Step 1 error: Error refreshing: 1 error(s) occurred:

                * data.azurerm_image.test: 1 error(s) occurred:

                * data.azurerm_image.test: data.azurerm_image.test: Error: Image "accteste-6769746892753897977" (Resource Group "acctestRG-6769746892753897977") was not found
FAIL
exit status 1
FAIL    github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/azurerm       239.256s
make: *** [testacc] Error 1

djsly · 2018-06-05T13:56:04Z

@katbyte I pushed a fix for the test that was failling.

09:39 $ make testacc TF_LOG_PATH=./tf.log TF_LOG=DEBUG TEST=./azurerm TESTARGS='-run=TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_customImage'
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./azurerm -v -run=TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_customImage -timeout 180m
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_customImage
--- PASS: TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_customImage (760.64s)
PASS
ok      github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/azurerm       760.673s

djsly · 2018-06-05T13:57:52Z

DataSource cannot be used with resources that are managed within the same run unless you specify a depends_on but even that isn't working properly due to some destroy problem in dependencies. I couldn't find a rationale to use a data source to extract the .id of the image since it is exposed at the resource level. For this reason, I removed the usage of the data source.

katbyte

@djsly,

Thank you for fixing that! LGTM now 👍

katbyte · 2018-06-05T22:57:34Z

Tests pass:

katbyte · 2018-06-16T03:39:31Z

Hey @djsly,

Just a friendly heads up 1.7 including this PR has been released !

ghost · 2020-03-30T15:34:51Z

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!

katbyte added enhancement service/vmss Virtual Machine Scale Sets labels May 7, 2018

katbyte changed the title ~~Issue 901~~ Additional VMSS properties (issues #910 & #1210) May 7, 2018

djsly changed the title ~~Additional VMSS properties (issues #910 & #1210)~~ Additional VMSS properties (issues #910, #1210 & #1226) May 11, 2018

katbyte self-requested a review May 14, 2018 23:20

katbyte requested changes May 16, 2018

View reviewed changes

djsly changed the title ~~Additional VMSS properties (issues #910, #1210 & #1226)~~ Additional VMSS properties (issues #1210, #1226 & #1249) May 22, 2018

djsly force-pushed the issue-901 branch from f51b3b0 to 00230a9 Compare May 22, 2018 17:06

katbyte requested changes May 23, 2018

View reviewed changes

djsly force-pushed the issue-901 branch from 23f2570 to d726bc5 Compare May 23, 2018 10:46

djsly changed the title ~~Additional VMSS properties (issues #1210, #1226 & #1249)~~ Additional VMSS properties (issues #1210 & #1226 May 23, 2018

katbyte approved these changes May 23, 2018

View reviewed changes

katbyte requested changes May 23, 2018

View reviewed changes

djsly force-pushed the issue-901 branch from abe552c to ecf4938 Compare May 30, 2018 11:28

katbyte requested changes Jun 4, 2018

View reviewed changes

djsly force-pushed the issue-901 branch from 21b2d3a to f18033b Compare June 5, 2018 11:01

djsly force-pushed the issue-901 branch from f18033b to 89d1528 Compare June 5, 2018 11:02

Adding support for dns_servers and ip_forwarding

789720f

djsly force-pushed the issue-901 branch from 89d1528 to 789720f Compare June 5, 2018 11:04

fix failling test

e8242fd

katbyte approved these changes Jun 5, 2018

View reviewed changes

katbyte added this to the 1.7.0 milestone Jun 5, 2018

katbyte merged commit 4683093 into hashicorp:master Jun 5, 2018

djsly deleted the issue-901 branch June 5, 2018 22:58

katbyte added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 5, 2018

Update CHANGELOG.md to include #1209

f9714a1

ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 30, 2020

		testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetSinglePlacementGroup("azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set.test", true),
		testCheckAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSetIPForwarding("azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_set.test", false),

Additional VMSS properties (issues #1210 & #1226 #1209

Additional VMSS properties (issues #1210 & #1226 #1209

Conversation

djsly commented May 7, 2018 • edited Loading

WodansSon commented May 7, 2018

djsly commented May 7, 2018

djsly commented May 11, 2018

djsly commented May 11, 2018

djsly commented May 11, 2018

katbyte commented May 11, 2018

djsly commented May 11, 2018

djsly commented May 14, 2018

katbyte left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

katbyte May 19, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

djsly commented May 17, 2018

katbyte commented May 19, 2018

djsly commented May 22, 2018

katbyte left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

katbyte left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

djsly commented May 23, 2018 via email

katbyte left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

djsly May 24, 2018 • edited Loading

djsly commented May 7, 2018 •

edited

Loading

katbyte left a comment •

edited

Loading

katbyte May 19, 2018 •

edited

Loading

djsly May 24, 2018 •

edited

Loading