Unsolicited changes creep into every TF deploy for CGR Qs having 2 AGs in a RING

Hi Team
A few months ago, we have utilised the feature in GC that allows us to add multiple AGs to the same RING of a CGR Queue for some of our queues.
However, since we applied that change months ago, for every such queue (with multiple AGs in a RING), every TF deploy now lists a change pertaining to those Qs even when we did not make any change to those Qs.

I have attached 2 screenshots here:

  • Screenshot 1 (Queue Defined with 2 AGs in 1st RING): shows the Q config where this queue is shown having 2 AGs in its RING1

  • Screenshot 2 (Unsolicited changes listed in CI Checks): shows the CI Checks status from TF where you can see the change description shows a criss-cross of AG assignment to the queue.

When you look at the 2nd screenshot, it appears that TF is always changing the sequence of AG assignment to the RING, and then also undo's the change. And this continues into every PR deploy even if we do not make any change to the said queue.

I believe this change started to appear in the CI Checks ever since we first added the 2nd AG into the RING.

Screenshot 1: (Queue Defined with 2 AGs in 1st RING)

Screenshot 2: (Unsolicited changes listed in CI Checks)

Can you please look into a way to avoid this happening?

The issue this creates is that when we send our PR for approval from senior level execs, we have to defend everytime why those changes are appearing in the CI Checks, when they are not really expected. And we are getting push back from the leadership team to get this issue resolved so that we do not have this hinderance henceforth.

Regards
Nishant Tank

Hi @Nishant_Tank

Thanks raising this issue. We are actively working on it and will keep you posted here.

-Charlie

(Tracking with DEVTOOLING-927)

Hi @charlie.conneely
Thanks for the confirmation.

Will wait for further updates.

Let me know if you need additional info on this.

Regards
Nishant Tank

1 Like

@Nishant_Tank the fix for this has been merged. You will see this problem resolved on v1.53.0 of the provider which will be released tomorrow Nov 19th.

Thanks again

1 Like

@charlie.conneely
I can confirm the upgraded provider code has done the trick.

Thank you very much for a prompt resolution.

Regards
Nishant Tank

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.