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

azurerm_windows_virtual_machine: Change of license_type should not force new resource #7409

Closed
NilsBusche opened this issue Jun 19, 2020 · 2 comments

Comments

@NilsBusche
Copy link
Contributor

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 (and AzureRM Provider) Version

Terraform v0.12.24
terraform-provider-azurerm_v2.12.0

Affected Resource(s)

  • azurerm_windows_virtual_machine

Terraform Configuration Files

resource "azurerm_windows_virtual_machine" "instance" {

[...]

  license_type = "None"

[...]

}

Expected Behavior

Changing attribute license_type should be an in-place update and should work online.
Azure CLI and Azure Portal allow changing this without replacement of VM.

Actual Behavior

Changing attribute license_type forces new resource to be created:
~ license_type = "None" -> "Windows_Client" # forces replacement

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Create azurerm_windows_virtual_machine with license_type = "None"
  2. terraform apply
  3. Change license_type to Windows_Client
  4. terraform plan / terraform apply

Important Factoids

Changing without recreation is possible using Azure built-in features.

@ArcturusZhang
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @NilsBusche thanks for this issue!

Taking a look through this appears to be a duplicate of #7192 - rather than having multiple issues open tracking the same thing I'm going to close this issue in favour of that one; would you mind subscribing to #7192 for updates?

Thanks!

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jul 22, 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. If you feel I made an error 🤖 🙉 , please reach out to my human friends 👉 [email protected]. Thanks!

@ghost ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jul 22, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants