Terraform-provider-aws: `aws_lb_target_group` can often not be updated

[jen20]

Community Note

• Please vote on this issue by adding a 👍 reaction to the original issue to help the community and maintainers prioritize this request
• Please do not leave "+1" or "me too" comments, they generate extra noise for issue followers and do not help prioritize the request
• If you are interested in working on this issue or have submitted a pull request, please leave a comment

Terraform Version

Terraform v0.11.8-dev (2dc7241df0245b2be005946b4bc903dfab496c71)
+ provider.aws v1.22.0

Affected Resource(s)

• aws_lb_target_group

Terraform Configuration Files

To repro: update the health check interval of a target group health check on a network load balancer which is used in the default rule of a listener.

Expected Behavior

Health check updates.

Actual Behavior

However, the following error is returned:

* module.servers.aws_lb_target_group.vault: Health check interval cannot be updated from 10 to 5 for TCP based Target Group arn:aws:elasticloadbalancing:us-west-2:xxx:targetgroup/xxxxxxc01a597c842d53d8, use 'terraform taint' to recreate the resource if you wish

Upon terraform tainting the appropriate resource, deletion fails, because it is in use by a listener.

Important Factoids

Working with a Network Load Balancer rather than an Application Load Balancer, though the same problem may also present there.

[jen20]

One bug here actually is with the message suggesting tainting: for a TCP health check, the only valid values are 10 and 30 seconds, and taint will not help there.

[github-actions[bot]]

Marking this issue as stale due to inactivity. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues. If this issue receives no comments in the next 30 days it will automatically be closed. Maintainers can also remove the stale label.

If this issue was automatically closed and you feel this issue should be reopened, we encourage creating a new issue linking back to this one for added context. Thank you!

[jen20]

It's a bit much to close an issue as stale due to inactivity when it is a bug which has been reported, confirmed by upvotes from 9 others _as specifically requested in the issue template_ vs commenting, _has a duplicate issue_, and then has been summarily ignored for close to two years.

Closing issues does not make bugs go away, nor does it improve the product.

[maryelizbeth]

@jen20

The stale issue bot helps us to focus on active issues affecting the largest swaths of our users by looking at issues of all ages with no activity in the last 2 years. It then allows for a 30 day review period where comments (like yours) will keep the issue open for us to review and prioritize accordingly.

While we wish we could take action on every issue that is reported to the AWS provider, unfortunately the volume is such that we cannot. We regularly review our backlog and pull items into our roadmap and releases based on community traction (upvotes, comments), open PRs, whether or not they affect a core service, and HashiCorp's product priorities.

If you'd like to discuss anything further, please feel free to reach out me at [email protected].

[hashibot[bot]]

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!