Skip to content

fix: Enable changing name of MSK configuration #12

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

Conversation

mvoitko
Copy link

@mvoitko mvoitko commented Sep 7, 2023

Description

Add lifecycle create before destroy rule for msk configuration

Motivation and Context

To enable changing name of MSK configuration
AWS Terraform provider related issue

Breaking Changes

How Has This Been Tested?

  • [x ] I have updated at least one of the examples/* to demonstrate and validate my change(s)
  • I have tested and validated these changes using one or more of the provided examples/* projects
  • I have executed pre-commit run -a on my pull request

@mvoitko mvoitko changed the title Fix: Fix: enable changing name of MSK configuration Sep 7, 2023
@mvoitko mvoitko changed the title Fix: enable changing name of MSK configuration fix: enable changing name of MSK configuration Sep 7, 2023
@mvoitko mvoitko changed the title fix: enable changing name of MSK configuration fix: Enable changing name of MSK configuration Sep 7, 2023
@bryantbiggs
Copy link
Member

I don't believe this solves the issue based on hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws#15831 (comment)

@bryantbiggs bryantbiggs closed this Sep 8, 2023
@mvoitko
Copy link
Author

mvoitko commented Sep 8, 2023

I don't believe this solves the issue based on hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws#15831 (comment)

Nice discussion from your side. I haven't said that this fix solves the issue, but without this fix the workaround doesn't work. The workaround is to add a random suffix to the configuration name which changes only when the content of the configuration file is changed. Then it's not possible to remove the configuration when the new one does not exist yet. And the fix I have done is needed exactly for that reason. You can find similar comments in the issue. Could you please explain why there is no sense in adding this lifecycle rule to the msk configuration?

@bryantbiggs
Copy link
Member

you didn't provide any information, supporting evidence, etc. - you simply linked to a closed issue that states that it doesn't work. I do not see any discussion in the linked issue, a simple open and shut of "this unfortunately is not supported". without any supporting evidence, should we just simply take your word and freely accept any changes users sumbit?

@mvoitko
Copy link
Author

mvoitko commented Sep 8, 2023

@bryantbiggs what evidence do you need?

@bryantbiggs
Copy link
Member

  1. A reproduction of the current issue (this is what's required in the issue template)
  2. A deployable example that demonstrates the change remediates the issue described

@nawarajshahi
Copy link

@mvoitko I agree with @bryantbiggs that evidence needs to be provided to support why this change is necessary. I had encountered the exact same issue with upgrading kafka cluster because it wanted to destroy existing configuration before it could even create it and also renaming didn't help either without the lifecycle policy of create_before_destroy set.

I think we both ended up following same pattern to get the fixes applied since just making cluster config unique alone wasn't enough. I'm happy to work with you to create new issue and PR going.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Oct 9, 2023

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.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 9, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants