Update google-two-tier example to be idempotent

[gobengo]

The google-two-tier example in master adds or changes 2 things on each re-apply. This PR makes it idempotent.

• google_compute_forwarding_rule.default.port_range = "80" would save okay, but then would save to state file as "80-80", so it would always think a change was needed
• google_compute_target_pool.default.instances items would resolve to full URLs, but saved in state as just {zone}/{instance.name}.
  • This PR uses a workaround mentioned in google_compute_target_pool is not idempotent when using URLs as values from google_compute_instance #9121

[paddycarver]

Thanks for opening this @gobengo! I'm tempted to just get #9121 and #9051 fixed, instead of updating the examples to work around the bugs. What do you think?

[gobengo]

I'm sort of new to terraform, but the workarounds don't seem too hacky. Fixing bugs can take time or be deprioritized for plenty of good reasons. Might as well have idempotent examples until then. PRs addressing those issues can always change the examples back to the best right way.

…

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017, 5:53 PM Paddy ***@***.***> wrote: Thanks for opening this @gobengo <https://github.com/gobengo>! I'm tempted to just get #9121 <#9121> and #9051 <#9051> fixed, instead of updating the examples to work around the bugs. What do you think? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#12258 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAKfBmG1PkWomnQkdnclzbmNdjqbjX67ks5rgUuGgaJpZM4MMSsD> .

[apparentlymart]

Hello @gobengo, and thanks for working on this!

As part of the the Terraform 0.10 release earlier this year, all of the Terraform providers were moved to their own repositories in the terraform-providers GitHub organization, and removed from the Terraform Core repository.

Unfortunately due to the fact that new issues and pull requests are being opened constantly, it was not possible for the various provider maintainers to merge all outstanding pull requests before this split, and there is no automatic way to migrate a pull request to a new repository.

As a result, this pull request can sadly no longer be applied as-is, and so I'm going to close it.

If you or someone else has the time and motivation to apply the same changes to the Google Cloud provider repository and open a new PR there, the maintainers of that provider should be able to review and merge it. On the other hand, it looks like at least one of the issues that @paddycarver mentioned has been closed in the mean time, so I'm not sure if this change is still required.

Thanks again for working on this, and sorry it was not able to be merged before the provider repository changes.

[gobengo]

@apparentlymart makes sense. thanks!

[ghost]

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.