Fixes#8455, #5390
This add a new `no_device` attribute to `ephemeral_block_device` block,
which allows users omit ephemeral devices from AMI's predefined block
device mappings, which is useful for EBS-only instance types.
* add rds db for opsworks
* switched to stack in vpc
* implement update method
* add docs
* implement and document force new resource behavior
* implement retry for update and delete
* add test that forces new resource
* Add new aws_vpc_endpoint_route_table_association resource.
This commit adds a new resource which allows to a list of route tables to be
either added and/or removed from an existing VPC Endpoint. This resource would
also be complimentary to the existing `aws_vpc_endpoint` resource where the
route tables might not be specified (not a requirement for a VPC Endpoint to
be created successfully) during creation, especially where the workflow is
such where the route tables are not immediately known.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Wilczynski <krzysztof.wilczynski@linux.com>
Additions by Kit Ewbank <Kit_Ewbank@hotmail.com>:
* Add functionality
* Add documentation
* Add acceptance tests
* Set VPC endpoint route_table_ids attribute to "Computed"
* Changes after review - Set resource ID in create function.
* Changes after code review by @kwilczynski:
* Removed error types and simplified the error handling in 'resourceAwsVPCEndpointRouteTableAssociationRead'
* Simplified logging in 'resourceAwsVPCEndpointRouteTableAssociationDelete'
* provider/aws: Add DeploymentRollback as a valid TriggerEvent type
* provider/aws: Add auto_rollback_configuration to aws_codedeploy_deployment_group
* provider/aws: Document auto_rollback_configuration
- part of aws_codedeploy_deployment_group
* provider/aws: Support removing and disabling auto_rollback_configuration
- part of aws_codedeploy_deployment_group resource
- when removing configuration, ensure events are removed
- when disabling configuration, preserve events in case configuration is re-enabled
* provider/aws: Add alarm_configuration to aws_codedeploy_deployment_group
* provider/aws: Document alarm_configuration
- part of aws_codedeploy_deployment_group
* provider/aws: Support removing alarm_configuration
- part of aws_codedeploy_deployment_group resource
- disabling configuration doesn't appear to work...
* provider/aws: Refactor auto_rollback_configuration tests
- Add create test
- SKIP failing test for now
- Add tests for build & map functions
* provider/aws: Refactor new aws_code_deploy_deployment_group tests
- alarm_configuration and auto_rollback_configuration only
- add assertions to deployment_group basic test
- rename config funcs to be more easy to read
- group public tests together
* provider/aws: A max of 10 alarms can be added to a deployment group.
- aws_code_deploy_deployment_group.alarm_configuration.alarms
- verified this causes test failure with expected exception
* provider/aws: Test disabling alarm_configuration and auto_rollback_configuration
- the tests now pass after rebasing the latest master branch
* provider/aws: Add ability to create aws_ebs_snapshot
```
% make testacc TEST=./builtin/providers/aws TESTARGS='-run=TestAccAWSEBSSnapshot_'
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
go generate $(go list ./... | grep -v /terraform/vendor/)
2016/11/10 14:18:36 Generated command/internal_plugin_list.go
TF_ACC=1 go test ./builtin/providers/aws -v -run=TestAccAWSEBSSnapshot_
-timeout 120m
=== RUN TestAccAWSEBSSnapshot_basic
--- PASS: TestAccAWSEBSSnapshot_basic (31.56s)
=== RUN TestAccAWSEBSSnapshot_withDescription
--- PASS: TestAccAWSEBSSnapshot_withDescription (189.35s)
PASS
ok github.com/hashicorp/terraform/builtin/providers/aws220.928s
```
* docs/aws: Addition of the docs for aws_ebs_snapshot resource
* provider/aws: Creation of shared schema funcs for common AWS data source
patterns
* provider/aws: Create aws_ebs_snapshot datasource
Fixes#8828
This data source will use a number of filters, owner_ids, snapshot_ids
and restorable_by_user_ids in order to find the correct snapshot. The
data source has no real use case for most_recent and will error on no
snapshots found or greater than 1 snapshot found
```
% make testacc TEST=./builtin/providers/aws TESTARGS='-run=TestAccAWSEbsSnapshotDataSource_'
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
go generate $(go list ./... | grep -v /terraform/vendor/)
2016/11/10 14:34:33 Generated command/internal_plugin_list.go
TF_ACC=1 go test ./builtin/providers/aws -v
-run=TestAccAWSEbsSnapshotDataSource_ -timeout 120m
=== RUN TestAccAWSEbsSnapshotDataSource_basic
--- PASS: TestAccAWSEbsSnapshotDataSource_basic (192.66s)
=== RUN TestAccAWSEbsSnapshotDataSource_multipleFilters
--- PASS: TestAccAWSEbsSnapshotDataSource_multipleFilters (33.84s)
PASS
ok github.com/hashicorp/terraform/builtin/providers/aws226.522s
```
* docs/aws: Addition of docs for the aws_ebs_snapshot data source
Adds the new resource `aws_ebs_snapshot`
When `force_destroy` was specifed on an `aws_iam_user` resource, only IAM
access keys and the login profile were destroyed. If a multi-factor auth
device had been activated for that user, deletion would fail as follows:
```
* aws_iam_user.testuser1: Error deleting IAM User testuser1: DeleteConflict: Cannot delete entity, must delete MFA device first.
status code: 409, request id: aa41b1b7-ac4d-11e6-bb3f-3b4c7a310c65
```
This commit iterates over any of the user's MFA devices and deactivates
them before deleting the user. It follows a pattern similar to that used
to remove users' IAM access keys before deletion.
```
$ make testacc TEST=./builtin/providers/aws TESTARGS='-run=TestAccAWSUser_'
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
go generate $(go list ./... | grep -v /terraform/vendor/)
2016/11/20 17:09:00 Generated command/internal_plugin_list.go
TF_ACC=1 go test ./builtin/providers/aws -v -run=TestAccAWSUser_ -timeout 120m
=== RUN TestAccAWSUser_importBasic
--- PASS: TestAccAWSUser_importBasic (5.70s)
=== RUN TestAccAWSUser_basic
--- PASS: TestAccAWSUser_basic (11.12s)
PASS
ok github.com/rhenning/terraform/builtin/providers/aws 20.840s
```
The docs for the CreateDBInstance API call include quite a bit more information about each individual option, (for example `Engine` has each of the possible options listed, whilst the cli reference doesn't).
* Added key_name_prefix to aws_key_pair resource schema.
* Added logic to prefix the aws_key_pair name on create.
* Added aws_key_pair test config for key_name_prefix case.
* Copied test cases from testAccAWSSecurityGroup namespace.
* Modified copied test case to suit aws_key_pair resource.
* Changed required flag to optional on key_name argument for aws_key_pair resource.
* Added documentation for key_name_prefix argument.
* Code style fix.
* Fixed undefined variable error in test.
fixes#9110
An error was found where, static_routes_only was not set on a vpn
connection import. This commit introduces setting the static_routes_only
to false when no Options are found. This follows the AWS convention as follows:
```
- options (structure)
Indicates whether the VPN connection requires static routes. If you are creating a VPN connection for a device that does not support BGP, you must specify true .
Default: false
```
So we take it that `static_options_only` is false by default
```
% make testacc TEST=./builtin/providers/aws TESTARGS='-run=TestAccAWSVpnConnection_'
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
go generate $(go list ./... | grep -v /terraform/vendor/)
2016/11/02 10:38:18 Generated command/internal_plugin_list.go
TF_ACC=1 go test ./builtin/providers/aws -v -run=TestAccAWSVpnConnection_ -timeout 120m
=== RUN TestAccAWSVpnConnection_importBasic
--- PASS: TestAccAWSVpnConnection_importBasic (178.29s)
=== RUN TestAccAWSVpnConnection_basic
--- PASS: TestAccAWSVpnConnection_basic (336.81s)
=== RUN TestAccAWSVpnConnection_withoutStaticRoutes
--- PASS: TestAccAWSVpnConnection_withoutStaticRoutes (195.45s)
PASS
ok github.com/hashicorp/terraform/builtin/providers/aws 710.572s
```
The documentation mentions ownership of both VPCs for aws_vpc_peering_connection auto_accept to work but if both VPC are in separate accounts it does not matter if both account are owned or not.
In #6843 its stated that aws_vpc_peering_connection only works if both VPC are in the same AWS account.
The documentation fails to mention that peeing of two VPCs in two different regions is not supported by AWS.
Ninir