-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.6k
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
provider/scaleway server volume property #9695
provider/scaleway server volume property #9695
Conversation
Hi @nicolai86 So close on this one! one of the tests fails:
P. |
this actually broken when merging the latest SDK update :(
Now all the tests are green:
|
You rock! Thanks so much :) |
* provider/scaleway: extract volume validation helpers * provider/scaleway: add server volume property fixes hashicorp#9499 * provider/scaleway: update `scaleway_server` docu * provider/scaleway: fix volume handling this actually broken when merging the latest SDK update :( * provider/scaleway: fix volume attachment * provider/scaleway: fix volume expectation
* provider/scaleway: extract volume validation helpers * provider/scaleway: add server volume property fixes hashicorp#9499 * provider/scaleway: update `scaleway_server` docu * provider/scaleway: fix volume handling this actually broken when merging the latest SDK update :( * provider/scaleway: fix volume attachment * provider/scaleway: fix volume expectation
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 have found a problem that seems similar to this, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further. |
as discussed in #9254 and #9499, some Scaleway server instance types require volumes to be specified at creation time, in order to be used.
The Scaleway CLI chooses to hide this from the user, but I think it's worthwile to make this choice explicit.
this PR adds a new property to
scaleway_server
, to make this work:I've updated the docs and added test cases which pass:
this PR might need rebasing once #9687 is merged.