This message was deleted.
# awss
sparse-intern-71089
10/03/2023, 9:49 PMThis message was deleted.
l
little-cartoon-10569
10/03/2023, 9:50 PMI'm going to create a new project to test this, but I'm time constrained, so any answers that get here faster than my investigations would be gratefully received!
little-cartoon-10569
10/03/2023, 10:27 PMFirst experiment completed. Re: this:
I'm hoping that renaming the base record in AWS will be enough: this will prevent the name clash, allowing the new record to be created. However, will it delete the correct record next? Or will it delete based on record name, which means the new record will be deleted?It does delete the new record. Editing the record is not a solution.
😢 1
sad panda 1
c
calm-cat-43230
10/04/2023, 1:05 AM(thanks for sharing this — there are similar stories across various AWS resources, always good to hear about them)
calm-cat-43230
10/04/2023, 1:06 AMWould the
allowOverwritedeleteExistingl
little-cartoon-10569
10/04/2023, 1:08 AMOoo. It might. It would probably have to be set before the change.. but my experiment config is still in place, it's easy to test.
little-cartoon-10569
10/04/2023, 1:19 AMExperiment done. It has exactly the same result as editing the record, without having to make a manual change. Which is a bit better, but still not ideal.
To solve my current problem, this does open up a couple of shorter workarounds, and I like this one:
1. Add the allowOverwrite property and run
pulumi uppulumi state deletepulumi up🙌 1
little-cartoon-10569
10/04/2023, 1:20 AMThanks for pointing out that property, I didn't know about it before!
🙂 1
f
fierce-ability-58936
10/04/2023, 1:20 AMWait, so why don't you just give it an alias with the old name? https://www.pulumi.com/docs/concepts/options/aliases/
🙌 2
l
little-cartoon-10569
10/04/2023, 1:21 AMYou know, working under pressure to fix a problem I made does not suit me. I miss all the obvious solutions...
little-cartoon-10569
10/04/2023, 1:21 AMI shall repeat the experiment with this improvement.
little-cartoon-10569
10/04/2023, 1:30 AMHmm. Seems like this is so correct, I don't even need the allowOverwrite...
🆒 1
g
great-sunset-355
10/07/2023, 10:58 AMAliases are a good solution but unfortunately, they will often pollute the codebase, especially if you have nested components, etc... you'll need to pass aliases via resource options all the way down making the code more convoluted (sometimes)
So for some solutions I prefer the state surgery
l
little-cartoon-10569
10/07/2023, 8:06 PMI put them directly where they're needed. That would become a problem only if the affection component resources were to be called in new places, after adding the aliases. And that doesn't apply in this case.
Also, I prefer to wrap them in feature flags and remove them as soon as all affected stacks have been deployed. Once everything has been renamed successfully, the old aliases can be usually safely removed.
f
fierce-ability-58936
10/08/2023, 9:01 PMI sometimes have aliases in transformations, so they're are all in one place and can be removed easily.
l
little-cartoon-10569
10/08/2023, 9:06 PMNot a bad idea. Easier to manage the feature-flagging this way too.
34 Views