Existing autoscaling group updated to use launch template instead of launch configuration
Actual Behavior
Terraform fails on first apply with the error below, 2nd apply goes through fine. Works as expected with provider 4.67.0
Relevant Error/Panic Output Snippet
╷
│ Error: Provider produced inconsistent final plan
│
│ When expanding the plan for module.asg_proxyserver_m5_large.aws_autoscaling_group.asg to include new values learned so far during apply, provider "registry.terraform.io/hashicorp/aws" produced an invalid new value for .launch_template[0].id: was null, but now cty.StringVal("unknown").
│
│ This is a bug in the provider, which should be reported in the provider's own issue tracker.
╵
Create a asg with launch config applied, apply, create launch template and replace launch config with launch template. Results in a bug above. Same steps with provider 4.67 go through with no issues.
Please do not leave "+1" or other comments that do not add relevant new information or questions, they generate extra noise for issue followers and do not help prioritize the request.
Volunteering to Work on This Issue
If you are interested in working on this issue, please leave a comment.
If this would be your first contribution, please review the contribution guide.
Terraform Core Version
1.8.3
AWS Provider Version
5.65.0
Affected Resource(s)
aws_autoscaling_group
Expected Behavior
Existing autoscaling group updated to use launch template instead of launch configuration
Actual Behavior
Terraform fails on first apply with the error below, 2nd apply goes through fine. Works as expected with provider 4.67.0
Relevant Error/Panic Output Snippet
Terraform Configuration Files
Old module:
New module:
Steps to Reproduce
Create a asg with launch config applied, apply, create launch template and replace launch config with launch template. Results in a bug above. Same steps with provider 4.67 go through with no issues.
Debug Output
No response
Panic Output
No response
Important Factoids
No response
References
No response
Would you like to implement a fix?
No