-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 121
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
DNS servers block results in unexpected change #841
Comments
I can confirm the reported behavior. To avoid this issue, I added in my code config this lifecycle {
ignore_changes = [
initialization
]
} It seems to be too much (and it is) but, it prevents every unwanted reboots. If I need to change something, I can simply rebuild the instance. |
Looks like mea culpa in #832 It was an attempt to add Thinking fast, maybe providing both attributes will be temporary fix? Or just downgrade to v0.41.0
|
Let me take a look... 👀 |
I had noticed this as well. I was going to look into trying to see if there would be a way to put in some logic to maybe check if servers was being used then to ignore the server being set or set it in the code as they shouldn't be defined differently. Not ideal solution. In the meantime I was able to prevent the change coming up by just defining the server attribute as well as servers with the same value. This worked with the side effect of showing a deprecated attribute warning however this is better than having terraform reboot the VM. The ideal solution, I think, would be to remove the server attribute but obviously that introduces a, albeit small, breaking change unfortunately. |
First off, let me just say thank you for all your hard work developing this excellent provider.
Describe the bug
When I specify DNS servers using new
servers
list format for a vm as follows:The VM gets created correctly:
![Screenshot 2023-12-27 at 23 59 58](https://private-user-images.githubusercontent.com/13852784/293140288-698aa474-f823-492c-a47b-8f7dee9daaf8.png?jwt=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.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.ar6ppv1wrsl5LsLs4lbmnA1yaQBvufYuEiARFRxkjUE)
However, subsequent
terraform plan
's yield:Expected behavior
Subsequent
terraform plan
's should not result in any planned changes.TF_LOG=DEBUG terraform apply
):The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: