-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.6k
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
implements region_instance_group_manager #10907
implements region_instance_group_manager #10907
Conversation
This should be good to go now cc @evandbrown |
Any timeline on merging this? |
Can this be merged? FYI - @evandbrown |
I can also fix this merge conflict that it now has 💃 |
@evandbrown any input here? |
any updates? |
hey @paddyforan would you be able to review this as well for me? I have a merge conflict to resolve which I can do. I am unsure of the approach on this. |
it'd be nice to have it merged |
Hey @zachgersh! Sorry for the delay on reviewing this. I'm queuing it up. I have a couple in line ahead of it (sorry) but I'm hoping to get to it shortly. It's been on my radar for a bit now, and just keeps slipping. I know you have a couple open that need some attention. :) Thanks for contributing to Terraform, and sorry for the lengthy review timelines. Trying to do better about that. |
@paddyforan not a problem - I am planning on putting more PRs in and am glad to be here helping out (we use terraform a bunch at Pivotal). We all have things come up and I know you all are super slammed so THANK YOU for all the work you do on terraform! I am going to fix the conflict here and push again so it works. |
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.
A few comments. Overall, this looks great! I just have some questions about a few specific portions, shouldn't be anything drastic.
Thanks for your patience, and sorry for the lengthy wait on the review.
Delete: resourceComputeRegionInstanceGroupManagerDelete, | ||
Importer: &schema.ResourceImporter{ | ||
State: schema.ImportStatePassthrough, | ||
}, |
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'd love to see an Exists function here, too, just for completeness. Though kudos on the Import support right out the gate!
d.Set("instance_group", service.InstanceGroup) | ||
d.Set("target_size", service.TargetSize) | ||
d.Set("self_link", service.SelfLink) | ||
d.Set("update_strategy", "RESTART") //this field doesn't match the manager api, set to default value |
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 would cause a perpetual diff if the user set update_strategy to anything else, I imagine. Why not try to read it out of d
and set it to the default only if d
doesn't have a value for it?
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.
great idea!
|
||
currentSize := int64(d.Get("target_size").(int)) | ||
|
||
for err != nil && currentSize > 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.
Can we comment this to better describe what's going on? Why are we backing off on error? Is it possible to use a StateChangeConf
to wait for this instead of custom backoff code?
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.
lets try it and see how it goes when I run the tests.
PreCheck: func() { testAccPreCheck(t) }, | ||
Providers: testAccProviders, | ||
CheckDestroy: testAccCheckRegionInstanceGroupManagerDestroy, | ||
Steps: []resource.TestStep{ |
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 may be reading this wrong, but with only one step, I'm not sure this is actually updating anything--I think it's just creating a new resource with the desired config.
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.
yeah, don't remember what I was thinking here but I agree this test looks incorrect - let me make sure we get an update in here.
page_title: "Google: google_compute_instance_group_manager" | ||
sidebar_current: "docs-google-compute-instance-group-manager" | ||
page_title: "Google: google_compute_region_instance_group_manager" | ||
sidebar_current: "docs-google-compute-region-instance-group-manager" |
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 looks like you just updated the compute_instance_group_manager
docs instead of copying them and adding a new resource.
@zachgersh I imagine you're really busy but any ideas when you are going to have time to action the review points on the PR? |
Hey @benpollard - targeting the end of the week :D I spoke to @paddycarver about this recently. Really appreciate you pinging me as well. |
Hey @benpollard, @zachgersh, |
@bjaroszewski this PR probably will need to move over to the new Google Terraform provider repository. |
@danielcompton how will that move happen? I couldn't find the issue there (https://github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-google/issues) |
I will have to move it.
Cheers,
Zach
…On Jul 6, 2017, 12:52 PM -0700, Matti Paksula ***@***.***>, wrote:
@danielcompton how will that move happen? I couldn't find the issue there (https://github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-google/issues)
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
Hi @zachgersh, In case it's helpful, I rebased your change into the separated provider repo here: I didn't open a PR for it since I think it'd be better for you to copy these changes into your own fork and open a PR from there, since that way you can make any further changes you want to make in a repository where you have write access. This was an automatic rebase with some manual conflict resolution, so I apologize if I messed anything up along the way. |
It's really hard to track what the status of this is. There is a lot of duplicate tickets open. Maybe someone can close the dups. |
@paddycarver Can you close this one. I have a PR open in the new repo for the same thing: |
Closing this one out in favour of hashicorp/terraform-provider-google#394. Thanks for all the hard work on this, @zachgersh! |
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. |
This fixes #8866
Some items of note: