-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
fix: add missing ForceNew node_config fields to update-variant keepers #2579
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
Open
voron
wants to merge
1
commit into
terraform-google-modules:main
Choose a base branch
from
dysnix:fix/missing-keepers-force-new
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
The addition of these five fields is correct as they are indeed
ForceNewattributes. However, several other criticalForceNewfields that the module accepts in thenode_poolsmap are also missing from this list. Missing these fields will cause theupdate-variantmodules to fail with a 409 conflict when they are changed, as the node pool name won't be rotated, preventingcreate_before_destroyfrom working correctly.Consider adding the following missing fields as well:
machine_typedisk_size_gbdisk_typeimage_typenode_metadataenable_gcfsenable_gvnicenable_fast_socketprovisioned_iopsprovisioned_throughputenable_confidential_nodesThis will make the zero-downtime update logic much more robust for common node pool configuration changes.
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.
Thanks, but I don't think these belong in the keepers list — most of them aren't
ForceNewin the provider:machine_type,disk_size_gb,disk_type,image_type— updateable in placeenable_gcfs,enable_gvnic,enable_fast_socket— updateableprovisioned_iops,provisioned_throughput— updateable (handled as part of disk update)node_metadata— not a currentnode_configfield (legacy alias ofworkload_metadata_config.mode, which is updateable)enable_confidential_nodes— theForceNewbits ofconfidential_nodesare already covered viaenable_confidential_storage; the surface this module exposes doesn't add a newForceNewgap hereAdding any of these would force full pool recreation on routine in-place changes, which is the opposite of what this list is for.
The five fields in this PR were picked by cross-checking
node_configin the provider source forForceNew: trueagainst what the module actually surfaces fromnode_pools. The reviewers' confidence list in the original write-up enumerated the rest already-covered.