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_security_group: Avoid dropping group from state on AWS consistency issues #2284

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

carlossg
Copy link
Contributor

It appears, based on the report in hashicorp/terraform#6991
that the EC2 API is being
inconsistent in reporting that a security group exists shortly after it
has been created; we've seen Terraform get past the "Waiting for
Security Group to exist" step but then apparently detect that it's gone
again once we get into the Update function.

Rewrite of hashicorp/terraform#11361

It appears, based on the report in hashicorp/terraform#6991
that the EC2 API is being
inconsistent in reporting that a security group exists shortly after it
has been created; we've seen Terraform get past the "Waiting for
Security Group to exist" step but then apparently detect that it's gone
again once we get into the Update function.
@radeksimko radeksimko added bug Addresses a defect in current functionality. size/XS Managed by automation to categorize the size of a PR. labels Nov 15, 2017
@radeksimko radeksimko added the service/ec2 Issues and PRs that pertain to the ec2 service. label Jan 16, 2018
@radeksimko radeksimko changed the title Avoid dropping a security group from state on AWS consistency issues resource/aws_security_group: Avoid dropping group from state on AWS consistency issues Jan 16, 2018
@DzmitrySudnik
Copy link
Contributor

@carlossg are you still working on it? that issue hit me recently

@carlossg
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm not working on it anymore, the change used to work in previous versions of terraform

@copumpkin
Copy link

@radeksimko any feedback on this? It's biting me too and I'd love to see it get merged

@bcornils
Copy link
Contributor

looks like we have a check failing. Has anyone had time to assess or review criticality of the failure?

@bflad
Copy link
Contributor

bflad commented Nov 8, 2018

Hi folks 👋 It looks like this old PR was failing TravisCI and did not receive any further attention so I'm going to close this. If this is still an issue, I'd double check that you're on the latest version of the AWS provider.

Nowadays we usually implement resource.Retry() combined with d.IsNewResource() for this type of eventual consistency logic and very much try to avoid Update after Create to simplify the logic. If someone has the interest in adding that but cannot figure out the implementation, please reach out.

@bflad bflad closed this Nov 8, 2018
@carlossg carlossg deleted the 6991 branch March 1, 2019 20:03
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 31, 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 Mar 31, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
bug Addresses a defect in current functionality. service/ec2 Issues and PRs that pertain to the ec2 service. size/XS Managed by automation to categorize the size of a PR.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants