Skip to content

Conversation

@Aashiq-J
Copy link
Member

@Aashiq-J Aashiq-J commented Apr 14, 2025

Description

A user reported that when they modified the code to run everytime using timestamp. It used to fail randomly, even though the error was due to an intermittent issue in the iaas api response. We modified the code to run the confirm_lb_active script only when there is a change to the additional security group which needs to be attached to the LB.

Release required?

  • No release
  • Patch release (x.x.X)
  • Minor release (x.X.x)
  • Major release (X.x.x)
Release notes content

Run the pipeline

If the CI pipeline doesn't run when you create the PR, the PR requires a user with GitHub collaborators access to run the pipeline.

Run the CI pipeline when the PR is ready for review and you expect tests to pass. Add a comment to the PR with the following text:

/run pipeline

Checklist for reviewers

  • If relevant, a test for the change is included or updated with this PR.
  • If relevant, documentation for the change is included or updated with this PR.

For mergers

  • Use a conventional commit message to set the release level. Follow the guidelines.
  • Include information that users need to know about the PR in the commit message. The commit message becomes part of the GitHub release notes.
  • Use the Squash and merge option.

@Aashiq-J Aashiq-J requested a review from toddgiguere as a code owner April 14, 2025 13:02
@Aashiq-J
Copy link
Member Author

/run pipeline

@Aashiq-J
Copy link
Member Author

/run pipeline

@Aashiq-J Aashiq-J changed the title feat: run confirm_lb_active only when there is change in ld id feat: run confirm_lb_active only when there is change in lb id Apr 14, 2025
@Aashiq-J
Copy link
Member Author

/run pipeline

@vburckhardt
Copy link
Member

There is a similar issue on the destroy path - eg: the action of unattaching may fail if the lb is not ready. We could workaround this by running the script on destroy only in another resource. That said, I'm starting to think that the provider should actually handle properly this scenario and allow to wait for the lb to be read (up to a specific timeout).

@vburckhardt
Copy link
Member

Provider issue: IBM-Cloud/terraform-provider-ibm#6150

@Aashiq-J
Copy link
Member Author

@vburckhardt ,
Its not possible to run the null resource block during the destroy because the script uses a lot of computed values which wont be available during the destroy.
Screenshot 2025-04-16 at 5 50 54 PM

@Aashiq-J
Copy link
Member Author

/run pipeline

@ocofaigh
Copy link
Contributor

/run pipeline

@ocofaigh ocofaigh merged commit 8ee604d into main Apr 18, 2025
2 checks passed
@ocofaigh ocofaigh deleted the lb_status branch April 18, 2025 18:01
@terraform-ibm-modules-ops
Copy link
Contributor

🎉 This PR is included in version 3.46.2 🎉

The release is available on:

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

@vburckhardt
Copy link
Member

@Aashiq-J - we should incorporate IBM-Cloud/terraform-provider-ibm#6150 as the fix for customer to solve all issues, including on destroy. there is a workaround on destroy for computed value, using the shell provider instead of null resource block, but this is rather hack-ish so going through the proper fix in provider should work.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants