modular-magician user, it is either in the process of being autogenerated, or is planned to be autogenerated soon. If an issue is assigned to a user, that user is claiming responsibility for the issue. If an issue is assigned to hashibot, a community member has claimed the issue already.I think there is an issue with terraform 0.14.0 causing bad state to happen on changes.
See https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-google/issues/7944 for the first time it happened.
I got a similar error with cloud map:
When expanding the plan for google_compute_url_map.default to include new
values learned so far during apply, provider
"registry.terraform.io/hashicorp/google" produced an invalid new value for
.map_id: was cty.NumberIntVal(3.092957057560021842e+18), but now
cty.NumberIntVal(3.092957057560022e+18).
@Sytten Is this the same issue of #7944? Can you share the full debug log?
Same issue but different resources so it hints at a larger problem. Is it possible to get debug logs on terraform cloud? On the other issue I was able to resolve it by manually removing deposed instances from the state file.
@edwardmedia Found it, here is the debug of the apply. Let me know if you need the debug of the planning, it contains sensitive stuff so I can send it over email but not here.
run-f3xqCuxgPnmv3xrm-apply-log.txt
@Sytten I noticed you use random data for the name. Any particular reason? Do you want an new name for it every time it runs?
resource "google_compute_managed_ssl_certificate" "default" {
...
name = random_id.cert_name.hex
...
}
@edwardmedia I use the keeper parameter with the list of domains, its because you need a new name for the provider to create a new certificate when you change domains in the cert. So this doesnt change on every run.
@Sytten can you post the other resources? It looks this happens in the following applies. If this is the case, can you specify the steps how I can repro the issue? You may redact the secrets in the logs and post them at https://gist.github.com/.
@edwardmedia I am still unconvinced that has anything to do with the random provider. The logs I posted above are related only to this resource which doesn't use it.
resource "google_compute_url_map" "default" {
project = var.gcp_project
name = "${module.this.id}-https"
description = "URL map for load balancing"
# Default
default_service = local.services.service_marketing
default_route_action {
url_rewrite {
host_rewrite = "REDACTED"
}
}
# Marketing
host_rule {
hosts = ["REDACTED.io"]
path_matcher = "marketing"
}
path_matcher {
name = "marketing"
default_service = local.services.service_marketing
default_route_action {
url_rewrite {
host_rewrite = "REDACTED.gr8.com"
}
}
}
# CDN
host_rule {
hosts = ["cdn.REDACTED.io"]
path_matcher = "cdn"
}
path_matcher {
name = "cdn"
default_service = local.storage.bucket_cdn
}
}
I think the steps are fairly simple:
It seems to happen on any in-place change of basically any resource.
Here are the plan logs: https://gist.github.com/Sytten/3fa690a85698642a44035dadf1458b4b
@Sytten can you specify what change(s) in step3? To repro, I don't know the data for variables/ locals / modules, etc. Can you hard-coded all the values, and rerun all the steps? Basically I need all code that I can repro the issue
make a change to the url map
Anything can change it doesn't matter, the issue is not in the resource AFAIK. I can create a repo to reproduce if you want. Do the tests even pass with TF 0.14? This is such a core issue I would assume they don't.
@Sytten there are daily tests which do not show failures. I need specific steps and changes to repro the issue.
I am seeing the same issue with TF 0.14.0 & provider 3.50.0, and I am using fixed strings as names:
When expanding the plan for google_compute_url_map.public_assets to include
new values learned so far during apply, provider
"registry.terraform.io/hashicorp/google" produced an invalid new value for
.map_id: was cty.NumberIntVal(4.39984439957665894e+18), but now
cty.NumberIntVal(4.399844399576659e+18).
@renchap Did you see similar issues with other resources? because I had issues with another resource in #7944 so thats why I thought it was a more serious issue.
we have the same issue
Error: Provider produced inconsistent final plan
When expanding the plan for google_compute_url_map.default[0] to include new
values learned so far during apply, provider
"registry.terraform.io/hashicorp/google" produced an invalid new value for
.map_id: was cty.NumberIntVal(1.25906097628084157e+18), but now
cty.NumberIntVal(1.2590609762808413e+18).
This looks like a problem in 0.14.0 rather than the provider. I have filed https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform/issues/27208
I would recommend downgrading to 0.13.x if possible as we track down what the fix should be
I'm having the same issue with google_compute_url_map resource since I upgraded to terraform v0.14.0
I created the url_map in my project using terraform v0.13.5
what I'm trying to do now is to make the url_map point to a new backend service (previously an instance group, now a bucket) and then I get this error:
Error: Provider produced inconsistent final plan
When expanding the plan for
module.google_compute_url_map_uat-mcm-url-map.google_compute_url_map.urlmap to
include new values learned so far during apply, provider
"registry.terraform.io/hashicorp/google" produced an invalid new value for
.map_id: was cty.NumberIntVal(6.438816093867301036e+18), but now
cty.NumberIntVal(6.438816093867301e+18).
This is a bug in the provider, which should be reported in the provider's own
issue tracker.
I also tried to do the same with terraform v0.14.3, but it didn't work also.
This action (changing the backend) was working perfectly with terraform version 0.13.5
This should be resolved with TF2.4.0 https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-plugin-sdk/issues/655#issuecomment-748389946 but seems like the Google provider needs to be updated to reflect the fix.
We have a fix for this using the new version of the SDK. This should be in the release expected to go out next week.
This should be available in 3.51.1
@slevenick Can you update the changelog, this release got past under the radar. I didn't receive a github notification for it.
Most helpful comment
we have the same issue