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 wait_for_elb_capacity not working correctly with weighted_capacity #20806

Merged

Conversation

voanhduy1512
Copy link
Contributor

When use wait_for_elb_capacity in asg with mixed_instances_policy that contains weighted_capacity, the current logic count the number of instances instead of the weighted capacity, which will make terraform failed. This is similar to #11336 which is fixed by #11357 but only for desired_capacity.

Community Note

  • Please vote on this pull request by adding a 👍 reaction to the original pull request comment to help the community and maintainers prioritize this request
  • Please do not leave "+1" or other comments that do not add relevant new information or questions, they generate extra noise for pull request followers and do not help prioritize the request

Relates OR Closes #0000

@github-actions github-actions bot added service/autoscaling Issues and PRs that pertain to the autoscaling service. tests PRs: expanded test coverage. Issues: expanded coverage, enhancements to test infrastructure. size/L Managed by automation to categorize the size of a PR. needs-triage Waiting for first response or review from a maintainer. labels Sep 6, 2021
@voanhduy1512 voanhduy1512 force-pushed the fix_elb_wait_with_weighted_capacity branch from a484b16 to c3eddeb Compare September 6, 2021 06:58
@breathingdust breathingdust added bug Addresses a defect in current functionality. and removed needs-triage Waiting for first response or review from a maintainer. labels Sep 8, 2021
@voanhduy1512 voanhduy1512 force-pushed the fix_elb_wait_with_weighted_capacity branch from c3eddeb to ecfb6ee Compare September 9, 2021 00:52
@voanhduy1512
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi, ping again to see if this PR can be merged

@zhelding
Copy link
Contributor

Pull request #21306 has significantly refactored the AWS Provider codebase. As a result, most PRs opened prior to the refactor now have merge conflicts that must be resolved before proceeding.

Specifically, PR #21306 relocated the code for all AWS resources and data sources from a single aws directory to a large number of separate directories in internal/service, each corresponding to a particular AWS service. This separation of code has also allowed for us to simplify the names of underlying functions -- while still avoiding namespace collisions.

We recognize that many pull requests have been open for some time without yet being addressed by our maintainers. Therefore, we want to make it clear that resolving these conflicts in no way affects the prioritization of a particular pull request. Once a pull request has been prioritized for review, the necessary changes will be made by a maintainer -- either directly or in collaboration with the pull request author.

For a more complete description of this refactor, including examples of how old filepaths and function names correspond to their new counterparts: please refer to issue #20000.

For a quick guide on how to amend your pull request to resolve the merge conflicts resulting from this refactor and bring it in line with our new code patterns: please refer to our Service Package Refactor Pull Request Guide.

@voanhduy1512 voanhduy1512 force-pushed the fix_elb_wait_with_weighted_capacity branch from ecfb6ee to 041ec09 Compare March 20, 2022 18:13
@voanhduy1512
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @zhelding, I have updated the PR on top of new refactored codebase.

@github-actions github-actions bot added service/appflow Issues and PRs that pertain to the appflow service. service/appintegrations Issues and PRs that pertain to the appintegrations service. service/connect Issues and PRs that pertain to the connect service. service/networkmanager Issues and PRs that pertain to the networkmanager service. size/XL Managed by automation to categorize the size of a PR. and removed size/L Managed by automation to categorize the size of a PR. labels May 18, 2022
Copy link
Contributor

@ewbankkit ewbankkit left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM 🚀.

% make testacc TESTARGS='-run=TestAccAutoScalingGroup_MixedInstancesPolicyLaunchTemplateOverride_weightedCapacity_withELB' PKG=autoscaling ACCTEST_PARALLELISM=2
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./internal/service/autoscaling/... -v -count 1 -parallel 2  -run=TestAccAutoScalingGroup_MixedInstancesPolicyLaunchTemplateOverride_weightedCapacity_withELB -timeout 180m
=== RUN   TestAccAutoScalingGroup_MixedInstancesPolicyLaunchTemplateOverride_weightedCapacity_withELB
=== PAUSE TestAccAutoScalingGroup_MixedInstancesPolicyLaunchTemplateOverride_weightedCapacity_withELB
=== CONT  TestAccAutoScalingGroup_MixedInstancesPolicyLaunchTemplateOverride_weightedCapacity_withELB
--- PASS: TestAccAutoScalingGroup_MixedInstancesPolicyLaunchTemplateOverride_weightedCapacity_withELB (302.81s)
PASS
ok  	github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws/internal/service/autoscaling	308.430s

@ewbankkit
Copy link
Contributor

@voanhduy1512 Thanks for the contribution 🎉 👏.

@ewbankkit ewbankkit merged commit 5f1dea2 into hashicorp:main May 18, 2022
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v4.15.0 milestone May 18, 2022
@github-actions
Copy link

This functionality has been released in v4.15.0 of the Terraform AWS Provider. Please see the Terraform documentation on provider versioning or reach out if you need any assistance upgrading.

For further feature requests or bug reports with this functionality, please create a new GitHub issue following the template. Thank you!

@github-actions
Copy link

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 Jun 20, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
bug Addresses a defect in current functionality. service/appflow Issues and PRs that pertain to the appflow service. service/appintegrations Issues and PRs that pertain to the appintegrations service. service/autoscaling Issues and PRs that pertain to the autoscaling service. service/connect Issues and PRs that pertain to the connect service. service/networkmanager Issues and PRs that pertain to the networkmanager service. size/XL Managed by automation to categorize the size of a PR. tests PRs: expanded test coverage. Issues: expanded coverage, enhancements to test infrastructure.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants