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

add deletion_protection field for bigtable instance #6357

Conversation

modular-magician
Copy link
Collaborator

I called it allow_destroy to align with prevent_destroy and terraform destroy, but feel free to suggest a different name if you'd like.

I'm not considering this a breaking change because it doesn't affect users until they want to make a change, but let me know if you disagree.

Once this is merged, I'll follow up with the other bigtable resources.

EDIT: it's called deletion_protection now to align with the field in compute instance.

Release Note Template for Downstream PRs (will be copied)

* bigtable: added `deletion_protection` field to `google_bigtable_instance` to make deleting them require an explicit intent.
* `google_bigtable_instance` resources now cannot be destroyed unless `deletion_protection = false` is set in state for the resource.

Derived from GoogleCloudPlatform/magic-modules#3450

Signed-off-by: Modular Magician <magic-modules@google.com>
@modular-magician modular-magician merged commit 35de36a into hashicorp:master May 12, 2020
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jun 12, 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. If you feel I made an error 🤖 🙉 , please reach out to my human friends 👉 hashibot-feedback@hashicorp.com. Thanks!

@ghost ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 12, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

1 participant