Channels
announcements
automation-api
aws
azure
blog-posts
built-with-pulumi
cloudengineering
cloudengineering-support
content-share
contribex
contribute
docs
dotnet
finops
general
getting-started
gitlab
golang
google-cloud
hackathon-03-19-2020
hacktoberfest
install
java
jobs
kubernetes
learn-pulumi-events
linen
localstack
multi-language-hackathon
office-hours
oracle-cloud-infrastructure
package-authoring
pulumi-ai
pulumi-cdk
pulumi-cloud
pulumi-crosscode
pulumi-deployments
pulumi-kubernetes-operator
pulumiverse
python
registry
status
testingtesting123
testingtesting321
typescript
welcome
workshops
yaml
Title
r
rapid-eve-24229
10/20/2022, 8:04 PMHello All,
I just wanted to put out there something that just happened to me using your service.
I have a long-standing database that is part of the Pulumi deployment.
pulumi==3.43.1
pulumi-aws==5.18.0
pulumi-docker==3.4.1
python-dotenv==0.21.0l
little-cartoon-10569
10/20/2022, 8:20 PMTwo rules for deploying infra resources from IaC:
1. Always preview it manually or in your pull request. Ensure that resource changes are considered part of the review. Don't click Accept until you're happy with the resources that are changing.
2. Protect (opt
protect: truer
rapid-eve-24229
10/20/2022, 9:26 PMThanks for the info. The question is more about how I can keep my same database when deploying
deploying a stack with a new database is not going to be useful
l
little-cartoon-10569
10/20/2022, 9:49 PMThese rules are what you use to prevent accidentally deleting the database. Once you detect that, you can figure out why it's being deleted.
In this case, there are two possible reasons, and likely both are true:
1. The name/db_name property may be marked as "force replace". That is, any change here cannot be supported by the provider, and it has to delete the resource and recreate it.
2. In addition to changing the property, you also changed the Pulumi name (1st parameter). This is interpreted by Pulumi as being an entirely new resource: you have removed the old resource from your code and added a new one (that happens to be identical). So Pulumi is just carrying out your wishes.
r
rapid-eve-24229
10/20/2022, 10:09 PMYes, I understand that I should not change the name, but the "name" field was deprecated.
said to use "db_name"
which caused the issue
regarding #1, I have been deploying without this problem until the "name" was deprecated in favor of "db_name"
Here are some more logs to show the problem
This is if I have both "name" and "db_name"
error: aws:rds/instance:Instance resource 'grafana-svc-persistence-rds' has a problem: Conflicting configuration arguments: "name": conflicts with db_name. Examine values at 'Instance.Name'.
error: aws:rds/instance:Instance resource 'grafana-svc-persistence-rds' has a problem: Conflicting configuration arguments: "db_name": conflicts with name. Examine values at 'Instance.DbName'.
If i use just "name"
warning: name is deprecated: Use db_name instead
if I use just db_name
database and data see you in the next life
l
little-cartoon-10569
10/20/2022, 11:24 PMAt a guess, you're going to have to live with the deprecated field warning for now, if you want to avoid destroying the resource. You could try adding the
ignoreChangespulumi previewb
billowy-army-68599
10/21/2022, 2:25 AMhey @rapid-eve-24229 - really sorry for the issues you experienced here. I just sent an email to follow up as well.
This deprecation is indeed a frustrating (it’s actually driven by an upstream API we have no control over) and we’re sorry you ended up losing data.
@little-cartoon-10569 is indeed correct, you can set the property correctly and then use
ignoreChanges