Order of google_bigquery_dataset.access should be ignored

[tmshn]

Community Note

• Please vote on this issue by adding a 👍 reaction to the original issue to help the community and maintainers prioritize this request
• Please do not leave "+1" or "me too" comments, they generate extra noise for issue followers and do not help prioritize the request
• If you are interested in working on this issue or have submitted a pull request, please leave a comment
• If an issue is assigned to the "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 to "hashibot", a community member has claimed the issue already.

Terraform Version

$ terraform -v
Terraform v0.11.7

Affected Resource(s)

• google_bigquery_dataset

Terraform Configuration Files

resource "google_bigquery_dataset" "my_log" {
  dataset_id = "my_log"

  access = [
    {
      role          = "WRITER"
      special_group = "projectWriters"
    },
    {
      role          = "OWNER"
      special_group = "projectOwners"
    },
    {
      role          = "READER"
      special_group = "projectReaders"
    },
    {
      role          = "WRITER"
      user_by_email = "${var.logging_sink_writers["mylog"]}"
    },
  ]
}

Expected Behavior

terraform plan after terraform apply should produce an empty plan.

Actual Behavior

Diff on access argument persists forever.

Steps to Reproduce

1. terraform apply
2. terraform plan

References

• #644 Add Support For BigQuery Access Control #1931: The resource is introduced here
• Fix the perma-diff in storage bucket ACLs #1692, Ignore role_entity order in storage_bucket_acl #1525: The solution in case of storage bucket. Can be fixed similarly.

[tmshn]

I'd be happy to work on this if I had time, but unfortunately currently too busy for extra oss work...so just leave the issue. If no one work on this until October, I may do this for my October Fest work.

[tmshn]

Thank you @chrisst for the work! ❤️

[pmjacinto]

Thank you @chrisst !!

Any idea when this will be released? (i.e. will there be a 1.21.0 / 1.20.1 release, of do we need to wait for the 2.0.0 release ?)

[ghost]

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.

If you feel this issue should be reopened, we encourage creating a new issue linking back to this one for added context. If you feel I made an error 🤖 🙉 , please reach out to my human friends 👉 [email protected]. Thanks!

[chrisst]

@pmjacinto - That's a great question. This change will be part of the 2.0 release as it's a little too coupled to other changes to be able to pull it into a 1.21 branch at this point. However we're working right now to figure out if/when we can ship 2.0.0 but I'm hopeful it will be weeks (not months).