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.

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

resource/aws_launch_configuration: Added support for no_device #2132

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

maxfortun
Copy link
Contributor

http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSCloudFormation/latest/UserGuide/aws-properties-ec2-blockdev-mapping.html

Launch configs need ability to pass NoDevice for AMIs that come preconfigured with partitions.

@Ninir Ninir changed the title Added support for no_device resource/aws_launch_configuration: Added support for no_device Nov 1, 2017
@Ninir Ninir added the enhancement Requests to existing resources that expand the functionality or scope. label Nov 5, 2017
@radeksimko radeksimko added the size/S Managed by automation to categorize the size of a PR. label Nov 15, 2017
@maxfortun
Copy link
Contributor Author

Any estimate on a pull? Should I contact someone? Could really use this in the next release.

@bflad bflad added the service/autoscaling Issues and PRs that pertain to the autoscaling service. label Jan 28, 2018
Copy link
Member

@radeksimko radeksimko left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @maxfortun
thanks for the PR.

Besides my inline question do you mind adding this new field to any acceptance test? Feel free to create a new one if it's easiest.

ebs := &autoscaling.Ebs{}

if v, ok := bd["no_device"].(bool); !ok && v {
ebs.DeleteOnTermination = aws.Bool(bd["delete_on_termination"].(bool))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure I follow what's happening here. Was this supposed to be a fix of existing code? i.e.

if v, ok := bd["delete_on_termination"].(bool); ok {
    ebs.DeleteOnTermination = aws.Bool(v)

if not then can you please explain why can't we just leave the validation of potentially conflicting fields to the API?

@radeksimko radeksimko added the waiting-response Maintainers are waiting on response from community or contributor. label Jan 29, 2018
@radeksimko
Copy link
Member

Hi @maxfortun
do you think you'll find time to finish this?

It's totally 👌 if not - in which case would you be happy for someone else to pick it up?

Thanks.

@maxfortun
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sorry, don't have the time to finish this right now. And no, I do not mind at all if someone takes over and finishes this enhancement. Found a bug in this too. The state does not retain the change to no_device. This needs to be fixed as well.

@radeksimko radeksimko removed the waiting-response Maintainers are waiting on response from community or contributor. label Feb 16, 2018
@bflad bflad added this to the v1.14.0 milestone Apr 6, 2018
@bflad
Copy link
Contributor

bflad commented Apr 6, 2018

This has been released in version 1.14.0 of the AWS provider. Please see the Terraform documentation on provider versioning or reach out if you need any assistance upgrading.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 6, 2020

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. Thanks!

@ghost ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 6, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
enhancement Requests to existing resources that expand the functionality or scope. service/autoscaling Issues and PRs that pertain to the autoscaling service. size/S Managed by automation to categorize the size of a PR.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants