VMSS: Enhance Upgrade Policy with Automatic OS upgrades and Rolling Upgrade Policy support #922

agolomoodysaada · 2018-03-02T00:59:37Z

closes #714

Remaining Work

Support Rolling upgrade policy.
Support health probe referencing in network_profile.
Support automatic OS upgrades
Write passing tests

This is a placeholder PR to track progress of work. The code is ready to be reviewed.
I tried to stay backwards compatible as much as I could.

Docs can be found here: https://github.com/Azure/vm-scale-sets/tree/master/preview/upgrade#how-to-configure-auto-updates

…lling upgrade policy support

tombuildsstuff

hey @agolomoodysaada

Thanks for this PR :)

I've taken a look through and this is off to a good start - there's two things we need to add to be able to merge this:

Switch from a Set -> a List (since all values are being returned)
Adding an acceptance test to cover this functionality (which you've already got a checkbox for, I'm just stating it for posterity 😄)

Thanks!

tombuildsstuff · 2018-03-05T20:51:20Z

azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set.go

+			},
+
+			"rolling_upgrade_policy": {
+				Type:     schema.TypeSet,


given all 4 of these are returned, and there's only one item available - can we swap this to a TypeList instead? It'll make it easier for people to reference #Resolved

tombuildsstuff · 2018-03-05T21:25:12Z

azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set.go

+						"pause_time_between_batches": {
+							Type:     schema.TypeString,
+							Optional: true,
+							Default:  "PT0S",


are these 4 defaults the default set by Azure? #Closed

I believe they are, yes. #Closed

Yes it is. #Closed

tombuildsstuff · 2018-03-05T21:26:28Z

azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set.go

+						},
+					},
+				},
+				Set: resourceArmVirtualMachineScaleSetRollingUpgradePolicyHash,


(if we make this a List, we shouldn't need this Set function) #Resolved

tombuildsstuff · 2018-03-05T21:28:34Z

website/docs/r/virtual_machine_scale_set.html.markdown

+* `max_batch_instance_percent` - (Optional) The maximum percent of total virtual machine instances that will be upgraded simultaneously by the rolling upgrade in one batch. As this is a maximum, unhealthy instances in previous or future batches can cause the percentage of instances in a batch to decrease to ensure higher reliability. Defaults to `20`.
+* `max_unhealthy_instance_percent` - (Optional) The maximum percentage of the total virtual machine instances in the scale set that can be simultaneously unhealthy, either as a result of being upgraded, or by being found in an unhealthy state by the virtual machine health checks before the rolling upgrade aborts. This constraint will be checked prior to starting any batch. Defaults to `20`.
+* `max_unhealthy_upgraded_instance_percent` - (Optional) The maximum percentage of upgraded virtual machine instances that can be found to be in an unhealthy state. This check will happen after each batch is upgraded. If this percentage is ever exceeded, the rolling update aborts. Defaults to `5`.
+* `pause_time_between_batches` - (Optional) The wait time between completing the update for all virtual machines in one batch and starting the next batch. The time duration should be specified in ISO 8601 format for duration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601#Durations). Defaults to 0 seconds represented as `PT0S`.


minor can we quote the 0? #Resolved

katbyte · 2018-05-31T18:33:31Z

Hi @agolomoodysaada,

Just wondering if you were still working on this 🙂

agolomoodysaada · 2018-05-31T19:24:26Z

@katbyte , I honestly haven't had much time to finish up the tests for this work.
If you're interested in picking up this work, feel free to drop a comment here and take over.
Thank you!

katbyte

@jeffreyCline, @JunyiYi

This PR still has failing tests that need to be resolved:

* azurerm_lb_rule.test: Error Creating/Updating LoadBalancer "acctestlb-8066726686886945008" (Resource Group "acctestrg-8066726686886945008"): network.LoadBalancersClient#CreateOrUpdate: Failure sending request: StatusCode=0 -- Original Error: autorest/azure: Service returned an error. Status=400 Code="CannotModifyRuleUsedByProbeUsedByVMSS" Message="Load balancer rule /subscriptions/*******/resourceGroups/acctestrg-8066726686886945008/providers/Microsoft.Network/loadBalancers/acctestlb-8066726686886945008/loadBalancingRules/LBRule cannot be modified because it references the load balancer probe /subscriptions/*******/resourceGroups/acctestrg-8066726686886945008/providers/Microsoft.Network/loadBalancers/acctestlb-8066726686886945008/probes/ssh-running-probe that used as health probe by VM scale set /subscriptions/*******/resourceGroups/acctestrg-8066726686886945008/providers/Microsoft.Compute/virtualMachineScaleSets/acctvmss-8066726686886945008. To make changes to this rule, please update VM scale set to remove the reference to the probe." Details=[]

Test case has been updated accordingly.

katbyte

@JunyiYi,

All tests are failing due to a panic:

Test ended in panic.

------- Stdout: -------
=== RUN   TestAccAzureRMVirtualMachineScaleSet_NonStandardCasing

------- Stderr: -------
panic: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference
[signal SIGSEGV: segmentation violation code=0x1 addr=0x0 pc=0x19fed31]

goroutine 629 [running]:
github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/azurerm.flattenAzureRmVirtualMachineScaleSetRollingUpgradePolicy(...)
	/opt/teamcity-agent/work/6811c3a0aae0f499/src/github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set.go:1139
github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/azurerm.resourceArmVirtualMachineScaleSetRead(0xc42038d500, 0x20507a0, 0xc4204e4800, 0xc4204722e0, 0x0)
	/opt/teamcity-agent/work/6811c3a0aae0f499/src/github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set.go:873 +0x23a1
github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/azurerm.resourceArmVirtualMachineScaleSetCreate(0xc42038d500, 0x20507a0, 0xc4204e4800, 0xc42038d500, 0x0)
	/opt/teamcity-agent/work/6811c3a0aae0f499/src/github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set.go:828 +0xd4e
github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/vendor/github.com/hashicorp/terraform/helper/schema.(*Resource).Apply(0xc420354620, 0xc4202f9310, 0xc42062b480, 0x20507a0, 0xc4204e4800, 0xc4202cde01, 0x46, 0x0)
	/opt/teamcity-agent/work/6811c3a0aae0f499/src/github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/vendor/github.com/hashicorp/terraform/helper/schema/resource.go:227 +0x364
github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/vendor/github.com/hashicorp/terraform/helper/schema.(*Provider).Apply(0xc420354c40, 0xc4204ae870, 0xc4202f9310, 0xc42062b480, 0x1, 0x54, 0x13)
	/opt/teamcity-agent/work/6811c3a0aae0f499/src/github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/vendor/github.com/hashicorp/terraform/helper/schema/provider.go:283 +0xa4
github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/vendor/github.com/hashicorp/terraform/terraform.(*EvalApply).Eval(0xc42087a900, 0x32225c0, 0xc4206b72b0, 0x2, 0x2, 0x208ae8e, 0x4)
	/opt/teamcity-agent/work/6811c3a0aae0f499/src/github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/vendor/github.com/hashicorp/terraform/terraform/eval_apply.go:57 +0x239
github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/vendor/github.com/hashicorp/terraform/terraform.EvalRaw(0x3210c80, 0xc42087a900, 0x32225c0, 0xc4206b72b0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0)
	/opt/teamcity-agent/work/6811c3a0aae0f499/src/github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/vendor/github.com/hashicorp/terraform/terraform/eval.go:53 +0x173
github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/vendor/github.com/hashicorp/terraform/terraform.(*EvalSequence).Eval(0xc420791000, 0x32225c0, 0xc4206b72b0, 0x2, 0x2, 0x208ae8e, 0x4)
	/opt/teamcity-agent/work/6811c3a0aae0f499/src/github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/vendor/github.com/hashicorp/terraform/terraform/eval_sequence.go:14 +0x7e
github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/vendor/github.com/hashicorp/terraform/terraform.EvalRaw(0x3211740, 0xc420791000, 0x32225c0, 0xc4206b72b0, 0x1e18b80, 0x3223702, 0x1dad7e0, 0xc4203ff2a0)
	/opt/teamcity-agent/work/6811c3a0aae0f499/src/github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/vendor/github.com/hashicorp/terraform/terraform/eval.go:53 +0x173
github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/vendor/github.com/hashicorp/terraform/terraform.Eval(0x3211740, 0xc420791000, 0x32225c0, 0xc4206b72b0, 0xc420791000, 0x3211740, 0xc420791000, 0x48f514)
	/opt/teamcity-agent/work/6811c3a0aae0f499/src/github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/vendor/github.com/hashicorp/terraform/terraform/eval.go:34 +0x4d
github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/vendor/github.com/hashicorp/terraform/terraform.(*Graph).walk.func1(0x20135a0, 0xc42045a080, 0x0, 0x0)
	/opt/teamcity-agent/work/6811c3a0aae0f499/src/github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/vendor/github.com/hashicorp/terraform/terraform/graph.go:126 +0xd0d
github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/vendor/github.com/hashicorp/terraform/dag.(*Walker).walkVertex(0xc42039d880, 0x20135a0, 0xc42045a080, 0xc420624840)
	/opt/teamcity-agent/work/6811c3a0aae0f499/src/github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/vendor/github.com/hashicorp/terraform/dag/walk.go:387 +0x3c1
created by github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/vendor/github.com/hashicorp/terraform/dag.(*Walker).Update
	/opt/teamcity-agent/work/6811c3a0aae0f499/src/github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-azurerm/vendor/github.com/hashicorp/terraform/dag/walk.go:310 +0x1364

I have commented the relevant parts of code that required a nil-check.

katbyte · 2018-08-08T07:41:53Z

azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set.go

@@ -1059,6 +1134,17 @@ func flattenAzureRmVirtualMachineScaleSetBootDiagnostics(bootDiagnostic *compute
 	return []interface{}{b}
 }

+func flattenAzureRmVirtualMachineScaleSetRollingUpgradePolicy(rollingUpgradePolicy *compute.RollingUpgradePolicy) []interface{} {
+	b := map[string]interface{}{
+		"max_batch_instance_percent":              *rollingUpgradePolicy.MaxBatchInstancePercent,


These all need to be nil-checked. #Resolved

katbyte · 2018-08-08T07:42:32Z

azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set.go

+			MaxUnhealthyUpgradedInstancePercent: utils.Int32(int32(config["max_unhealthy_upgraded_instance_percent"].(int))),
+			PauseTimeBetweenBatches:             utils.String(config["pause_time_between_batches"].(string)),
+		}
+	} else {


this else is redundant, above if statement returns a value. #Resolved

@kt@katbyte.me is right. Please take at this link:
https://golang.org/ref/spec#Return_statements

The return values will be initialized to 0 while entering into function, so return nil here can be saved.

In reply to: 208484494 [](ancestors = 208484494)

katbyte · 2018-08-08T07:46:33Z

tombuildsstuff

hi @JunyiYi

Taking a quick look through this I noticed a couple of minor things in addition to @katbyte's comments - the main issue I spotted was that we should add an upgrade test to ensure the rolling_upgrade_policy block is removed (and fix up the nil checks)

Thanks!

tombuildsstuff · 2018-08-08T08:20:32Z

azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set_test.go

+}
+
+resource "azurerm_public_ip" "test" {
+  name                         = "PublicIPForLB"


this should be acctestpip%d to get caught by the sweepers #Resolved

tombuildsstuff · 2018-08-08T08:21:05Z

azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set_test.go

+  }
+
+  sku {
+    name     = "Standard_A0"


Standard_A0 -> Standard_F2 to reduce the time for this test #Resolved

azurerm/resource_arm_virtual_machine_scale_set_test.go

tombuildsstuff · 2018-08-08T08:26:53Z

website/docs/r/virtual_machine_scale_set.html.markdown

-    new resource to be created. See [documentation](http://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machine-scale-sets/virtual-machine-scale-sets-placement-groups) for more information.
+* `upgrade_policy_mode` - (Required) Specifies the mode of an upgrade to virtual machines in the scale set. Possible values, `Rolling`, `Manual`, or `Automatic`. When choosing `Rolling`, you will need to set a health probe.
+* `automatic_os_upgrade` - (Optional) Automatic OS patches can be applied by Azure to your scaleset. This is particularly useful when `upgrade_policy_mode` is set to `Rolling`. Defaults to `false`.
+* `rolling_upgrade_policy` - (Optional) Ignored unless `upgrade_policy_mode` is set to `Rolling`.


Can we make this:

* `rolling_upgrade_policy` - (Optional) A `rolling_upgrade_policy` block as defined below. This is only applicable when the `upgrade_policy_mode` is `Rolling` ``` #Resolved

hunterchris · 2018-08-31T08:38:44Z

Hello folks, is there any estimation to when this fix will be released?
Thanks!

holderbaum · 2018-09-06T04:57:35Z

Hey there,

we are still desperately looking for this feature since it actually hinders us in using scale sets at all.

What is you current estimate on when we can expect it's merge?

Cheers
Jakob

JunyiYi · 2018-09-06T20:40:25Z

Hi @hunterchris @holderbaum , the code here is waiting for a fix in API, you can track the issue here: Azure/azure-rest-api-specs#3751. AFAIK, without the fix by API side, we would not merge it.

JunyiYi · 2018-10-01T22:06:24Z

Hi @katbyte @tombuildsstuff , according to internal email thread, API team said they will not fix it in a foreseeable future. So I just fix it in the provider by

Making sure the user clears out the rolling_upgrade_policy when upgrade_policy_mode is not Rolling
And suppress rolling_upgrade_policy diff when user removes it (while remotely it is the default value) under non-Rolling upgrade_policy_mode

This action is also what API team handles it (I mean reset rolling_upgrade_policy to default values when upgrade_policy_mode is not Rolling) at the service side according to their confirmation in the email thread. They also recommend us to do so in our code base.

Test cases are added to cover the behavior here as well.

katbyte · 2018-10-26T23:33:56Z

@JunyiYi,

Thanks for the updates to the tests, they now pass:

tombuildsstuff · 2018-11-02T15:19:04Z

hi @agolomoodysaada @julienstroheker @holderbaum

Just to let you know that this has been released as a part of v1.18 of the AzureRM Provider (the full changelog is available here). You can upgrade to this by specifying the version in the provider block (as shown below) and then running terraform init -upgrade

provider "azurerm" {
  version = "=1.18.0"
}

Thanks!

ghost · 2019-03-06T14:04:13Z

I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues.

If you feel this issue should be reopened, we encourage creating a new issue linking back to this one for added context. If you feel I made an error 🤖 🙉 , please reach out to my human friends 👉 hashibot-feedback@hashicorp.com. Thanks!

agolomoodysaada force-pushed the upgrade_policy_rolling branch 4 times, most recently from f2424b5 to 5c2895e Compare March 2, 2018 01:11

vmss: add automatic os upgrades, network profile health probe, and ro…

83b20f2

…lling upgrade policy support

agolomoodysaada force-pushed the upgrade_policy_rolling branch from 5c2895e to 83b20f2 Compare March 2, 2018 16:02

agolomoodysaada changed the title ~~Enhance Upgrade Policy with Automatic OS upgrades and Rolling Upgrade Policy support~~ VMSS: Enhance Upgrade Policy with Automatic OS upgrades and Rolling Upgrade Policy support Mar 2, 2018

tombuildsstuff added enhancement service/vmss Virtual Machine Scale Sets labels Mar 2, 2018

tombuildsstuff added this to the 1.3.0 milestone Mar 2, 2018

tombuildsstuff previously requested changes Mar 5, 2018

View reviewed changes

tombuildsstuff added the waiting-response label Mar 5, 2018

tombuildsstuff modified the milestones: 1.3.0, 1.3.1 Mar 13, 2018

tombuildsstuff modified the milestones: 1.3.1, 1.3.2 Mar 28, 2018

tombuildsstuff modified the milestones: 1.3.2, 1.3.3 Apr 4, 2018

tombuildsstuff modified the milestones: 1.3.3, 1.4.0 Apr 17, 2018

tombuildsstuff modified the milestones: 1.4.0, 1.5.0 Apr 25, 2018

tombuildsstuff modified the milestones: 1.5.0, 1.6.0 May 8, 2018

tombuildsstuff modified the milestones: 1.6.0, 1.7.0 May 21, 2018

katbyte modified the milestones: 1.7.0, Soon May 31, 2018

katbyte previously requested changes Aug 7, 2018

View reviewed changes

Fix destruction issue in the test case

648b96c

katbyte removed the request for review from JunyiYi August 8, 2018 07:30

katbyte requested changes Aug 8, 2018

View reviewed changes

tombuildsstuff suggested changes Aug 8, 2018

View reviewed changes

Junyi Yi added 2 commits August 10, 2018 16:25

Add nil check to fix all test cases

017aadd

Fix code according to the feedback

7743a77

Add test case to update rolling upgrade policy

01406cd

ghost added the size/XL label Sep 28, 2018

Resolve conflict with upstream branch

8489acb

katbyte added the upstream/microsoft Indicates that there's an upstream issue blocking this issue/PR label Sep 29, 2018

Fix rolling_upgrade_policy diff issue when mode is not rolling

477b881

JunyiYi removed the upstream/microsoft Indicates that there's an upstream issue blocking this issue/PR label Oct 1, 2018

tombuildsstuff modified the milestones: Soon, 1.18.0 Oct 25, 2018

katbyte assigned katbyte and unassigned JunyiYi Oct 25, 2018

katbyte approved these changes Oct 26, 2018

View reviewed changes

katbyte merged commit c2080ad into hashicorp:master Oct 26, 2018

katbyte added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 26, 2018

Update CHANGELOG.md with #922

01186f4

ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 6, 2019

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

VMSS: Enhance Upgrade Policy with Automatic OS upgrades and Rolling Upgrade Policy support #922

VMSS: Enhance Upgrade Policy with Automatic OS upgrades and Rolling Upgrade Policy support #922

agolomoodysaada commented Mar 2, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

tombuildsstuff left a comment

tombuildsstuff Mar 5, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

tombuildsstuff Mar 5, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

agolomoodysaada Mar 6, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

julienstroheker Jun 15, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

tombuildsstuff Mar 5, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

tombuildsstuff Mar 5, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

katbyte commented May 31, 2018

agolomoodysaada commented May 31, 2018

katbyte left a comment •

edited

Loading

katbyte left a comment

katbyte Aug 8, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

katbyte Aug 8, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

metacpp Aug 9, 2018

katbyte commented Aug 8, 2018

tombuildsstuff left a comment

tombuildsstuff Aug 8, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

tombuildsstuff Aug 8, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

tombuildsstuff Aug 8, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

hunterchris commented Aug 31, 2018

holderbaum commented Sep 6, 2018

JunyiYi commented Sep 6, 2018 •

edited

Loading

JunyiYi commented Oct 1, 2018

katbyte commented Oct 26, 2018

tombuildsstuff commented Nov 2, 2018

ghost commented Mar 6, 2019

VMSS: Enhance Upgrade Policy with Automatic OS upgrades and Rolling Upgrade Policy support #922

VMSS: Enhance Upgrade Policy with Automatic OS upgrades and Rolling Upgrade Policy support #922

Conversation

agolomoodysaada commented Mar 2, 2018 • edited by JunyiYi Loading

Remaining Work

tombuildsstuff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tombuildsstuff Mar 5, 2018 • edited by JunyiYi Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tombuildsstuff Mar 5, 2018 • edited by JunyiYi Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

agolomoodysaada Mar 6, 2018 • edited by JunyiYi Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

julienstroheker Jun 15, 2018 • edited by JunyiYi Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tombuildsstuff Mar 5, 2018 • edited by JunyiYi Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tombuildsstuff Mar 5, 2018 • edited by JunyiYi Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

katbyte commented May 31, 2018

agolomoodysaada commented May 31, 2018

katbyte left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

katbyte left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

katbyte Aug 8, 2018 • edited by JunyiYi Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

katbyte Aug 8, 2018 • edited by JunyiYi Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

metacpp Aug 9, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

katbyte commented Aug 8, 2018

tombuildsstuff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tombuildsstuff Aug 8, 2018 • edited by JunyiYi Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tombuildsstuff Aug 8, 2018 • edited by JunyiYi Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tombuildsstuff Aug 8, 2018 • edited by JunyiYi Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

hunterchris commented Aug 31, 2018

holderbaum commented Sep 6, 2018

JunyiYi commented Sep 6, 2018 • edited Loading

JunyiYi commented Oct 1, 2018

katbyte commented Oct 26, 2018

tombuildsstuff commented Nov 2, 2018

ghost commented Mar 6, 2019

agolomoodysaada commented Mar 2, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

tombuildsstuff Mar 5, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

tombuildsstuff Mar 5, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

agolomoodysaada Mar 6, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

julienstroheker Jun 15, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

tombuildsstuff Mar 5, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

tombuildsstuff Mar 5, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

katbyte left a comment •

edited

Loading

katbyte Aug 8, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

katbyte Aug 8, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

tombuildsstuff Aug 8, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

tombuildsstuff Aug 8, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

tombuildsstuff Aug 8, 2018 •

edited by JunyiYi

Loading

JunyiYi commented Sep 6, 2018 •

edited

Loading