Closed jeffb4 closed 2 months ago
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has been open 30 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this issue will be closed in 10 days
I guess this is technically stale, no idea if it would be accepted/rejected as a feature.
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has been open 30 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this issue will be closed in 10 days
This issue was automatically closed because of stale in 10 days
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 your request related to a new offering from AWS?
This is not related to a new AWS offering
Is your request related to a problem? Please describe.
I'd like to use this very handy module for some EC2 instances that just frankly should never get deleted automatically. Examples for me are database servers - it's possible I'll need to tear them down and relaunch with automation, but the tearing down bit is likely to involve a human and a console.
Describe the solution you'd like.
The
ignore_ami
solution works very well, so maybe aprotected_instance
var for the module that creates an instance with lifecycle rulesprevent_destroy
and eitherignore_changes
all or an enumerated list of ec2 changes that would force a replacement.Describe alternatives you've considered.
In the alternate, I could beg on my knees for Hashicorp to implement a way to add lifecycle rules programmatically to resources created in modules. Or, they could implement a way for module writers to allow lifecycle stuff to be parameterized and passed in.
Additional context