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

Terraform 0.9.1 can't apply plan from a file with S3 backend #12871

Closed
rafaelmagu opened this issue Mar 19, 2017 · 6 comments · Fixed by #12888
Closed

Terraform 0.9.1 can't apply plan from a file with S3 backend #12871

rafaelmagu opened this issue Mar 19, 2017 · 6 comments · Fixed by #12888
Assignees

Comments

@rafaelmagu
Copy link

It appears that Terraform is generating invalid plan files when -out= is used.

Terraform Version

0.9.1

Affected Resource(s)

Core Terraform.

Expected Behavior

Expected to see terraform apply file.out apply any pending changes generated by terraform plan -out=file.out

Actual Behavior

Failed to load backend: The plan file contained both a legacy remote state and backend configuration.
This is not allowed. Please recreate the plan file with the latest version of
Terraform.

Steps to Reproduce

Please list the steps required to reproduce the issue, for example:

  1. rm file.out (just in case it exists currently)
  2. terraform plan -out=file.out
  3. terraform plan file.out

Current Mitigation

I'm applying changes using -target= statements.

@mubeta06
Copy link
Contributor

Yeah I am seeing this too after the upgrade.

@mitchellh
Copy link
Contributor

I found the issue. The migration code doesn't clear the remote section remotely (it clears it locally in what is called the "data" state which only has the backend configuration). I will fix this early in the AM tomorrow.

@tacchino
Copy link

tacchino commented Mar 20, 2017

Same thing happens with an Atlas backend, version 0.9.1

@mitchellh
Copy link
Contributor

Yes this is a generic problem with any legacy remote state. Plan on working on a fix here shortly.

mitchellh added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 20, 2017
Fixes #12871

We were forgetting to remove the legacy remote state from the actual
state value when migrating. This only causes an issue when saving a plan
since the plan contains the state itself and causes an error where both
a backend + legacy state exist.

If saved plans aren't used this causes no noticable issue.

Due to buggy upgrades already existing in the wild, I also added code to
clear the remote section if it exists in a standard unchanged backend
@mitchellh
Copy link
Contributor

Fix in attached PR, will be part of 0.9.2.

mitchellh added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 20, 2017
Fixes #12871

We were forgetting to remove the legacy remote state from the actual
state value when migrating. This only causes an issue when saving a plan
since the plan contains the state itself and causes an error where both
a backend + legacy state exist.

If saved plans aren't used this causes no noticable issue.

Due to buggy upgrades already existing in the wild, I also added code to
clear the remote section if it exists in a standard unchanged backend
mbfrahry pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 28, 2017
Fixes #12871

We were forgetting to remove the legacy remote state from the actual
state value when migrating. This only causes an issue when saving a plan
since the plan contains the state itself and causes an error where both
a backend + legacy state exist.

If saved plans aren't used this causes no noticable issue.

Due to buggy upgrades already existing in the wild, I also added code to
clear the remote section if it exists in a standard unchanged backend
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 15, 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 have found a problem that seems similar to this, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.

@hashicorp hashicorp locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 15, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants