-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
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
Plan fails when using google_project_service data source with disabled APIs - API not found #16515
Plan fails when using google_project_service data source with disabled APIs - API not found #16515
Comments
Thank you for your response @edwardmedia I understand the objective of the PR you mentioned, and I am not contesting its benefits, but this prevents the use case that even the documentation describes. We cannot check if the service is enabled if we can only use it with enabled services:
|
@trodge what do you think about this? |
It looks like this was an intended change for all data sources in 5.0.0 based on #12873. That being said, it's possible the behavior is not appropriate for this data source in particular, since the main use case for @NickElliot might have more context having made the change in GoogleCloudPlatform/magic-modules#8858. |
I think it would make sense to remove it for this data source as an exception, as it is the intended usage case for this specific data source. |
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. |
Community Note
modular-magician
user, it is either in the process of being autogenerated, or is planned to be autogenerated soon. If an issue is assigned to a user, that user is claiming responsibility for the issue. If an issue is assigned tohashibot
, a community member has claimed the issue already.Terraform Version
Affected Resource(s)
Terraform Configuration Files
Debug Output
Panic Output
Expected Behavior
Actual Behavior
Steps to Reproduce
terraform apply
Important Factoids
4.84.0
References
I believe this change was not intended, because it prevents the requested use case.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: