-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.1k
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: Correct key used on license_configuration_arn
#2796
Conversation
license_configuration_arn
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.
thank you!
### [19.17.3](v19.17.2...v19.17.3) (2023-10-30) ### Bug Fixes * Correct key used on `license_configuration_arn` ([#2796](#2796)) ([bd4bda2](bd4bda2))
This PR is included in version 19.17.3 🎉 |
It looks like the type on the right side of that ternary ought not have changed Error: Inconsistent conditional result types
on .terraform/modules/eks.eks/modules/eks-managed-node-group/main.tf line 179, in resource "aws_launch_template" "this":
179: for_each = length(var.license_specifications) > 0 ? var.license_specifications : []
├────────────────
│ var.license_specifications is object with no attributes
The true and false result expressions must have consistent types. The
'true' value is object, but the 'false' value is tuple. |
The issue lies with the following code: I forgot to change the type and default values of I solved the issue like this: |
I'm going to lock this pull request 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 related to this change, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further. |
Description
Following issue #2753.
Motivation and Context
Currently, it is not possible to provide a license through the
self-managed-node-group
andeks-managed-node-group
modules.This is necessary in cases like the following configuration:
Breaking Changes
I do not see any potential breaking changes.
How Has This Been Tested?
examples/*
to demonstrate and validate my change(s)examples/*
projectspre-commit run -a
on my pull requestAfter these modifications, I can define
license_configuration_arn
as follows:I'm not entirely sure in this case if it makes sense to have the map within a list. If you have a better idea, please feel free to suggest it. Nevertheless, it's currently working well for me in this way.