No matter how you like to participate in developer communities, Pulumi wants to meet you there. If you want to meet other Pulumi users to share use-cases and best practices, contribute code or documentation, see us at an event, or just tell a story about something cool you did with Pulumi, you are part of our community.

Pulumi Community

I had to restore the disk from the snapshot and after `pulumi refresh`, I got a lot of complaints. The new disk created from the snapshot, even though it had the same name, differs from the original one because of `snapshot` and `image` fields values. My question is: is it a legit scenario in GCP where I should use `ignore_changes` on Disk resource?

Well, this is what I did at least. I left the definition in code with `image` parameter (so I could create the whole infrastructure on the new env without any issues) and added `snapshot` and `image` to `ignore_changes` so it doesn’t complain if it changes on the cloud (mainly, `image -&gt; null` an `snapshot -&gt; &lt;some value&gt;`). It would be nice to get some :thumbsup: /:thumbsdown: from Pulumi/TF + GCP veteran :slightly_smiling_face:.