Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

r/aws_{ami,ami_copy,ami_from_instance}: Configurable timeouts. #1811

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 28, 2017
Merged

r/aws_{ami,ami_copy,ami_from_instance}: Configurable timeouts. #1811

merged 2 commits into from
Oct 28, 2017

Conversation

jmehnle
Copy link
Contributor

@jmehnle jmehnle commented Oct 4, 2017

Terraform 0.9.0 introduced a 40-minutes "create" timeout to the aws_ami, aws_ami_copy, aws_ami_from_instance resources. AWS instances with large disk volumes take a long time to snapshot, often more than 40 minutes.

Terraform recently also introduced configurable timeouts, but this must be implemented on a per-resource basis. This diff implements configurable timeouts for the aws_ami, aws_ami_copy, aws_ami_from_instance resources.

Copy link
Member

@radeksimko radeksimko left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @jmehnle
thanks for the contribution.

This looks reasonable - just two things to sort out before I click the green merge button:

  1. Maintainers always modify the Changelog as part of the merging process - this is mainly to avoid conflicts as PRs can sometimes go stale and Changelog changes very often.
  2. Do you mind passing just the bare minimum to all the waiter functions - i.e. time.Duration, not the whole ResourceData with all fields?

i.e. instead of

resourceAwsAmiWaitForAvailable(d, id, client)
resourceAwsAmiWaitForAvailable(d.Timeout(schema. TimeoutCreate), id, client)

That way you can also remove the ResourceData mocking in the test.

@radeksimko radeksimko added enhancement Requests to existing resources that expand the functionality or scope. waiting-response Maintainers are waiting on response from community or contributor. labels Oct 5, 2017
@jmehnle
Copy link
Contributor Author

jmehnle commented Oct 5, 2017

  1. Are you asking me to remove the change to CHANGELOG.md from the PR?
  2. Check out my latest commit. Is that what you meant? I figured passing the entire ResourceData by reference would be more efficient than passing a time.Duration by value, but I'm not passionate about this.

@jmehnle
Copy link
Contributor Author

jmehnle commented Oct 27, 2017

Anything I can do to help this along and get it merged?

@radeksimko radeksimko removed the waiting-response Maintainers are waiting on response from community or contributor. label Oct 28, 2017
Copy link
Member

@radeksimko radeksimko left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the ping, and sorry for a small delay. This LGTM now.

@radeksimko radeksimko merged commit 177a198 into hashicorp:master Oct 28, 2017
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 10, 2020

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 feel this issue should be reopened, we encourage creating a new issue linking back to this one for added context. Thanks!

@ghost ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 10, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
enhancement Requests to existing resources that expand the functionality or scope.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants