fix google_container_node_pool

[shuyama1]

fix a bug introduced in pr 8884

Release Note Template for Downstream PRs (will be copied)

[modular-magician]

Hi there, I'm the Modular magician. I've detected the following information about your changes:

Breaking Change Detection Failed

The breaking change detector crashed during execution. This is usually due to the downstream provider(s) failing to compile. Please investigate or follow up with your reviewer.

Diff report

Your PR generated some diffs in downstreams - here they are.

Terraform GA: Diff ( 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-))
Terraform Beta: Diff ( 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-))

[shuyama1]

breaking-chnage and missing-test detectors error seems related to the bug in the base branch now.
Both tpg and tpgb tests passed. Should be safe to merge.

[rileykarson]

@trodge @ScottSuarez are we able to identify cases where the base is broken and post a specific message?

[modular-magician]

Tests analytics

Total tests: 3060
Passed tests 2761
Skipped tests: 298
Affected tests: 1

Action taken

Found 1 affected test(s) by replaying old test recordings. Starting RECORDING based on the most recent commit. Click here to see the affected tests

TestAccDataSourceGoogleServiceAccountIdToken_impersonation

Get to know how VCR tests work

[modular-magician]

$\textcolor{green}{\textsf{Tests passed during RECORDING mode:}}$
TestAccDataSourceGoogleServiceAccountIdToken_impersonation[Debug log]

Rerun these tests in REPLAYING mode to catch issues

$\textcolor{green}{\textsf{No issues found for passed tests after REPLAYING rerun.}}$

---

$\textcolor{green}{\textsf{All tests passed!}}$
View the build log or the debug log for each test

[ScottSuarez]

@trodge @ScottSuarez are we able to identify cases where the base is broken and post a specific message?

It should be possible, but could you expand on what UX you're looking for ?

[rileykarson]

See #8976 (comment) it failed because the base (main) was broken and not head (the PR branch).

The error message "This is usually due to the downstream provider(s) failing to compile." is not very helpful.

[ScottSuarez]

See #8976 (comment) it failed because the base (main) was broken and not head (the PR branch).

The error message "This is usually due to the downstream provider(s) failing to compile." is not very helpful.

I think that is the wrong place to propose action. The breaking change tool is failing to execute. This is often due to users breaking tpg or tpgb. This case is an outlier and unit test checks already fail in tandem here.

We can certainly add a one off check in the differ that posts if the provider in the base branch fails to compile with a call to action to update the PR branch. Is that the ask?

[rileykarson]

I think that is the wrong place to propose action. The breaking change tool is failing to execute. This is often due to users breaking tpg or tpgb.

Right, but we can trivially tell here that it isn't failing because the user broke tpg or tpgb, and we can tell because the base failed. If a user had submitted a PR during this window they'd receive the same message even if their change didn't cause the problem, wasting their time as they investigate.

This case is an outlier and unit test checks already fail in tandem here.

Unit tests passed because they run against head, base is what failed:

We can certainly add a one off check in the differ that posts if the provider in the base branch fails to compile with a call to action to update the PR branch.

Yes, although probably indicating the contributor should wait until fixed since the average contributor won't be responsible for fixing main, i.e.: "The base branch failed to build successfully, and some checks were unable to run. Please run them again when the base branch is updated."

[ScottSuarez]

Unit tests passed because they run against head, base is what failed.

Ah yeah this makes sense.

The base branch failed to build successfully, and some checks were unable to run. Please run them again when the base branch is updated

This sounds reasonable. Could you make a ticket?