stackitcloud / terraform-provider-stackit

The official Terraform provider for STACKIT
https://registry.terraform.io/providers/stackitcloud/stackit
Apache License 2.0
34 stars 13 forks source link

terraform plan shows changes to read only attribute on stackit_ske_cluster #99

Open lupa95 opened 10 months ago

lupa95 commented 10 months ago

Expected Behavior

Terraform will not show changes to read only attributes on stackit_ske_cluster resource.

Current Behavior

Terraform shows planned changes to the read only attribute kubernetes_version_used.

# stackit_ske_cluster.example will be updated in-place
~ resource "stackit_ske_cluster" "example " {
      id                      = "1a143c23-8b0b-4dd8-8dd8-a5794773cde5,example-cluster"
    ~ kubernetes_version_used = "1.25.15" -> (known after apply)
      name                    = "wzk-cluster"
      # (5 unchanged attributes hidden)
  }

You can add this attribute to ignore_changes, but this is only a band-aid fix and terraform will (rightfully) display a warning about this:

│ Warning: Redundant ignore_changes element
│ 
│   on kubernetes.tf line 1, in resource "stackit_ske_cluster" "example ":
│    1: resource "stackit_ske_cluster" "example " {
│ 
│ Adding an attribute name to ignore_changes tells Terraform to ignore future changes to the argument in configuration after the object has been created, retaining the value originally
│ configured.
│ 
│ The attribute kubernetes_version_used is decided by the provider alone and therefore there can be no configured value to compare with. Including this attribute in ignore_changes has
│ no effect. Remove the attribute from ignore_changes to quiet this warning.
╵

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Deploy stackit_ske_cluster resource via terraform
  2. Run terraform plan again.

Terraform version used: 1.5.7 Stackit provider version used: 0.6.0 (issue was already present on 0.3.0)

joaopalet commented 10 months ago

Hello, thanks for your feedback!

This is a known issue that we already have planned to address. In the meantime, we have noticed that when adding a maintenance block to the configuration the issue does not seem to occur.