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

Increasing retention period on locked policy causes "Bucket 'X' does not have an unlocked retention policy" error. #4751

Closed
choonchernlim opened this issue Oct 24, 2019 · 4 comments · Fixed by GoogleCloudPlatform/magic-modules#2534
Labels

Comments

@choonchernlim
Copy link

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
  • If an issue is assigned to the "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.

Terraform Version

Terraform v0.12.12
+ provider.google v2.17.0
+ provider.google-beta v2.17.0
+ provider.null v2.1.2
+ provider.random v2.2.1

Affected Resource(s)

  • google_storage_bucket

Terraform Configuration Files

Based on https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/bucket-lock : "You can increase the retention period of a locked retention policy.".

So, given this configuration:-

resource "google_storage_bucket" "buckets" {
  for_each      = toset(var.names)
  name          = "${local.prefix}${each.value}"
  project       = var.project_id
  location      = var.location
  storage_class = var.storage_class
  labels        = var.labels
  retention_policy {
    is_locked = lookup(
      lookup(
        var.retention_policy,
        lower(each.value),
        {},
      ), 
      "is_locked", 
      false
    )
    retention_period = lookup(
      lookup(
        var.retention_policy,
        lower(each.value),
        {},
      ), 
      "retention_period", 
      1
    )
  }
  force_destroy = lookup(
    var.force_destroy,
    lower(each.value),
    false,
  )
  bucket_policy_only = lookup(
    var.bucket_policy_only,
    lower(each.value),
    true,
  )
  versioning {
    enabled = lookup(
      var.versioning,
      lower(each.value),
      false,
    )
  }
}

... I'm trying to increase the retention period of the locked policy from 300000 to 400000 of an existing GCS bucket:-

  ~ resource "google_storage_bucket" "buckets" {
        ...
      ~ retention_policy {
            is_locked        = true
          ~ retention_period = 300000 -> 400000
        }
    }

Plan: 0 to add, 1 to change, 0 to destroy.

Expected Behavior

Retention period should be increased on a locked retention policy without errors.

Actual Behavior

An error was thrown:-

Error: googleapi: Error 400: Bucket 'mcctest-2-us-first' does not have an unlocked retention policy., invalid

  on ../modules/storage/main.tf line 21, in resource "google_storage_bucket" "buckets":
  21: resource "google_storage_bucket" "buckets" {

However, the new retention period did get set correctly.

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Through Terraform, create a new GCS bucket with locked retention policy and retention period of 300000.
  2. Run "terraform plan" and "terraform apply".
  3. Verify in GCP console that the GCS bucket has a lock sign and "~3 days".
  4. Through Terraform, increase 300000 to 400000.
  5. Run "terraform plan" and "terraform apply".
  6. Here, you will see the error.
  7. Verify in GCP console that the GCS bucket has a lock sign and "~4 days".
@ghost ghost added the bug label Oct 24, 2019
@nat-henderson
Copy link
Contributor

Yep - the docs say you can do this, but the API is rejecting the request. The request appears to be correctly formatted.

@nat-henderson
Copy link
Contributor

Aha, I see - the issue is actually that we are trying to re-lock the policy after we update it. That's fixable.

@choonchernlim
Copy link
Author

Thank you for the prompt fix, @ndmckinley.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Nov 25, 2019

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 Nov 25, 2019
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants