aws_launch_configuration: block_device support

[xueshanf]

Thanks to add block_device support for aws_instance resource. Any plan to add to aws_launch_configuration?

[skippy]

+1

[jschneiderhan]

Has anyone made any progress on this yet? I have a branch with it almost working https://github.com/jschneiderhan/terraform/tree/block-device-mapping-launch-configuration, but it istn't quite there. It creates the Launch Configuration with the Block Device Mappings, and I can see the DeviceName/VolumeSize/etc. in the AWS console, but on subsequent terraform plan calls it keeps trying to modify it, so I must be doing something wrong:

-/+ module.jschneiderhan.aws_launch_configuration.test
    ...
    block_device.1139171820.delete_on_termination: "" => "1" (forces new resource)
    block_device.1139171820.device_name:           "" => "/dev/sda1" (forces new resource)
    block_device.1139171820.encrypted:             "" => "<computed>" (forces new resource)
    block_device.1139171820.snapshot_id:           "" => "<computed>" (forces new resource)
    block_device.1139171820.virtual_name:          "" => "" (forces new resource)
    block_device.1139171820.volume_size:           "" => "150" (forces new resource)
    block_device.1139171820.volume_type:           "" => "<computed>" (forces new resource)
    ...

[jschneiderhan]

It looks like the problem that I was having with that branch is related to a different issue (#913). I submitted the updates as a #935, although it's dependent on mitchellh/goamz#210 so it's currently marked as DON'T MERGE.

[josh-padnick]

+1 on this feature. Unfortunately, because Launch Configurations in AWS are copy-only, and because they immediately start launching EC2 instances in my AutoScalingGroup, trying to script around this temporarily with, for example, Boto, won't work unless I hardcode the AWS resource ID's. In my case, I was not able to use Terraform solely because this feature is missing. 😞

[xuwang]

+1 on this feature.

[ketzacoatl]

+1

[catsby]

I believe #1271 is a pull request for this, agree?

[jschneiderhan]

@catsby correct. #935 was the original PR, but it's since become out of date. @jwaldrip was awesome enough to fork it and bring it up to date #1271. I'm going to close #935 since #1271 is definitely the better PR at this point.

[catsby]

Closing this as well then in favor of #1271

[ghost]

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 have found a problem that seems similar to this, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.