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

Fix azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_sets #11516

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Jan 31, 2017
Merged

Conversation

rrudduck
Copy link
Contributor

This PR attempts to fix a number of issues with the current azurerm_virtual_machine_scale_sets resource.

  1. Fix issues related to using a custom image.
  2. Fix issues related to the ip_configurations not being properly passed to the Azure api.
  3. Support setting load_balancer_backend_address_pool_ids. There seems to be some issues with changes to this property after create not getting picked up for some reason, but on create this works correctly now.
  4. Add support for the overprovision property.

I've run though various tests using my Azure account and things seem to work correctly. Any feedback is appreciated!

Thanks.

@stack72
Copy link
Contributor

stack72 commented Jan 30, 2017

Hi @rrudduck

Thanks for the work here - I would love to see a couple of acceptance tests added to show that this all works as expected :)

We will also need to update the relevant documentation for this

Thanks

Paul

@rrudduck
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sure, I can take care of that.

@stack72
Copy link
Contributor

stack72 commented Jan 30, 2017

You Rock!

@moritzheiber
Copy link

#11400 is related to this

@moritzheiber
Copy link

@rrudduck You probably want to update the documentation as well, mentioning that you have to specify either vhd_containers or image (and how they relate to each other)

@rrudduck
Copy link
Contributor Author

Docs updated and tests for the lb and overprovision changes are done. I didn't create a test for the image related changes as it requires a custom image to be available in the storage account before creating the scale set. I didn't see a good way to do that given how the tests run.

@retheshnair
Copy link

@rrudduck . I was using packer to create the custom image post the storage account creation

@stack72
Copy link
Contributor

stack72 commented Jan 31, 2017

Hi @rrudduck

Thanks for the work here - this LGTM! I have just been able to run the tests on our CI server :)

Paul

@stack72 stack72 merged commit 512b155 into hashicorp:master Jan 31, 2017
stack72 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 31, 2017
* Image and vhdcontainers are mutually exclusive.

* Fix ip configuration handling and update support for load balancer backend pools.

* Fix os disk handling.

* Remove os_type from disk hash.

* Load balancer pools should not be computed.

* Add support for the overprovision property.

* Update documentation.

* Create acceptance test for scale set lb changes.

* Create acceptance test for scale set overprovisioning.
arcadiatea pushed a commit to ticketmaster/terraform that referenced this pull request Feb 9, 2017
* Image and vhdcontainers are mutually exclusive.

* Fix ip configuration handling and update support for load balancer backend pools.

* Fix os disk handling.

* Remove os_type from disk hash.

* Load balancer pools should not be computed.

* Add support for the overprovision property.

* Update documentation.

* Create acceptance test for scale set lb changes.

* Create acceptance test for scale set overprovisioning.
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 17, 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.

@ghost ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 17, 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.

4 participants