Closed petri-o-ojala closed 1 year ago
Hi @petri-ojala-tieto thanks for opening the issue! There is some issue within the update logic when adding the support for allowed_vm_sizes
. It doesn't consider the situation when VM is attached. I've opened #20131 to fix the issue.
This functionality has been released in v3.46.0 of the Terraform 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!
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.
Is there an existing issue for this?
Community Note
Terraform Version
1.3.6
AzureRM Provider Version
3.39.1
Affected Resource(s)/Data Source(s)
azurerm_proximity_placement_group
Terraform Configuration Files
Debug Output/Panic Output
Expected Behaviour
A new tag should be added to the placement proximity group resource without errors and
allowed_vm_sizes
should stay optional.Actual Behaviour
azurerm_proximity_placement_group resource cannot be changed (e.g. tags updated) after a VM has been attached to it.
Before the PPG has any VMs changing e.g. the tags works just fine.
Also defining
allowed_vm_sizes
based on the VMs in the PPG does not work, from actual deployment with existing PPG and multiple VMs failed withStandard_E48ds_v5 is the machine type already in the PPG and the list doesn't contain all the available VM types (e.g. no _v5 types).
Steps to Reproduce
The initial resources will be built (VM in PPG, VNet, etc).
Modify
main.tf
to include the anewtag
tag for the Proximity Placement Group resource.terraform apply
Will now fail with the above error.
Important Factoids
No response
References
No response