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

Triton locality attribute - allow self referencing #16060

Closed
pannon opened this issue Sep 9, 2017 · 2 comments
Closed

Triton locality attribute - allow self referencing #16060

pannon opened this issue Sep 9, 2017 · 2 comments

Comments

@pannon
Copy link

pannon commented Sep 9, 2017

Hi,

I am trying to provision instances in Triton with a locality far away from each other.
For instance in the example below, each machine created through a module called affinity-test should land far away from each other (spread across different compute nodes):
locality = { far_from = ["${triton_machine.affinity-test.id}"] }

(I believe this is a common use case, same machine types (services) spread out far away from each other.)

Trying to do this, results in the following error:
* module.affinity-test.triton_machine.affinity-test[0]: module.affinity-test.triton_machine.affinity-test[0]: self reference not allowed: "triton_machine.affinity-test.id"

In this instance it would be quite beneficial to allow self referencing. The locality flag expects machine UUID's which are only generated after the machine itself is provisioned anyway.

In other words the UUID of the current machine will not be in the list as that is only generated after the machine is provisioned.

Not sure if there is some other ways to achieve this kind of provisioning through the Triton provider - if yes I would be interested to hear some suggestions.

Thanks
P

@hashibot
Copy link
Contributor

hashibot commented Sep 9, 2017

This issue has been automatically migrated to terraform-providers/terraform-provider-triton#32 because it looks like an issue with that provider. If you believe this is not an issue with the provider, please reply to this issue and let us know.

@hashibot hashibot closed this as completed Sep 9, 2017
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 7, 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 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.

@ghost ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 7, 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