[Bug]: Adding capacity_provider_strategy leads to removal of autoscaling policy targets

[Renkas]

Terraform Core Version

1.5.6

AWS Provider Version

5.18.1

Affected Resource(s)

Everything is detailed in that issue: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws/issues/14615

I'm not sure why are actual bugs being closed without a fix?

Expected Behavior

it should work

Actual Behavior

yoiu need to apply twice

Relevant Error/Panic Output Snippet

No response

Terraform Configuration Files

ffs

Steps to Reproduce

stop with these

Debug Output

No response

Panic Output

No response

Important Factoids

No response

References

No response

Would you like to implement a fix?

None

[github-actions[bot]]

Community Note

Voting for Prioritization

• Please vote on this issue by adding a 👍 reaction to the original post to help the community and maintainers prioritize this request.
• Please see our prioritization guide for information on how we prioritize.
• 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.

[justinretzolk]

Hey @Renkas 👋 Thank you for taking the time to raise this! As far as why the previous issue was closed, we do so in order to ensure that the most relevant issues are kept open. Oftentimes, something will be reported as a bug that is, in actuality, a configuration issue. Other times, a bug will be fixed by a later release, but the reporting issue isn't closed for a multitude of reasons. Without some mechanism to close these issues, our backlog would continue to grow and distract from more relevant items. On the flip side of that, we definitely don't want to close actual issues, like you said. To avoid that, we wait until issues have had 2 full years with no interaction at all before the issue enters into the "stale" process that's described in the bot comments on the linked issue. We feel this strikes a balance, and gives ample opportunity for anyone involved to interact with the issue in a way that would keep it open.

Looking at the linked issue, I suspect this is something that could be resolved by a configuration update, but there's some relevant information that I'm missing that I'm hoping you can provide me.

• Are you running a configuration that is the same as the one in the linked issue? If not, we'll need an example configuration that can be used to reproduce this in order to look into it further.
• When you experience this issue, is the aws_ecs_service resource being replaced?
• Are you able to provide debug logs (redacted as needed)?

[Renkas]

I would need to create isolated test case to provide this to you. I really do not have time for this in the near future :( Sharing actual production config does not seem lika a good idea.

Isn't there enough details in the linked issue? It seems pretty similar to what we are doing.

[justinretzolk]

Hey @Renkas 👋 Totally understand that. Even just confirming that you're doing something similar should help whoever ends up picking this up, so thank you for the additional details nonetheless!