-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.2k
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
Adding support for error_output_prefix to the aws_kinesis_firehose_delivery_stream s3 destination #11229
Adding support for error_output_prefix to the aws_kinesis_firehose_delivery_stream s3 destination #11229
Conversation
@@ -1378,7 +1384,7 @@ func createSourceConfig(source map[string]interface{}) *firehose.KinesisStreamSo | |||
return configuration | |||
} | |||
|
|||
func createS3Config(d *schema.ResourceData) *firehose.S3DestinationConfiguration { | |||
func createS3Config(d *schema.ResourceData, withErrorOutputPrefix bool) *firehose.S3DestinationConfiguration { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
s3
/elasticsearch
/splunk
support ErrorOutputPrefix
, however, redshift
does not
@@ -1835,6 +1851,8 @@ func createRedshiftConfig(d *schema.ResourceData, s3Config *firehose.S3Destinati | |||
|
|||
redshift := rl[0].(map[string]interface{}) | |||
|
|||
s3Config := createS3Config(d, false) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Redshift does not support the ErrorOutputPrefix, so false
is passed. I moved the s3 config construction into each of the destination config methods to reflect they don't share the same s3 config.
Pull request #21306 has significantly refactored the AWS Provider codebase. As a result, most PRs opened prior to the refactor now have merge conflicts that must be resolved before proceeding. Specifically, PR #21306 relocated the code for all AWS resources and data sources from a single We recognize that many pull requests have been open for some time without yet being addressed by our maintainers. Therefore, we want to make it clear that resolving these conflicts in no way affects the prioritization of a particular pull request. Once a pull request has been prioritized for review, the necessary changes will be made by a maintainer -- either directly or in collaboration with the pull request author. For a more complete description of this refactor, including examples of how old filepaths and function names correspond to their new counterparts: please refer to issue #20000. For a quick guide on how to amend your pull request to resolve the merge conflicts resulting from this refactor and bring it in line with our new code patterns: please refer to our Service Package Refactor Pull Request Guide. |
@zhelding, I'm happy to update the PR, but will it sit for another 2 years without action? |
Hi @JeffAshton. No further action is required on your end for merging this pull request. This pull request will now be addressed via our standard prioritization process. Unfortunately, given the large quantity of issues and pull requests we receive, we are not always able to review every pull request in a timely manner. We prioritize contributions that provide the greatest value to the largest number of users -- which we primarily infer based on the number of 👍 reactions. Additionally, an explanation of the particular use case for a contribution can provide information on how the changes might be useful in a broader context. You can get a view of the wider development plans for the provider via our road map, published quarterly. Thank you again for your contribution and your patience. |
91315ab
to
b2c99bd
Compare
Output of acceptance tests (commercial):
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @JeffAshton , thank you so much for this PR and apologies for the wait! Overall, looked great 👍 To get this into our upcoming release, I've added a changelog and some additional tests per destination. Since the S3ConfigurationSchema
is also shared by the s3_backup_configuration
within redshift_configuration
and extended_s3_configuration
, i've added support there as well. Lastly, to address the ErrorOutputPrefix handling for redshift
, i've moved that outside of the methods we already have to keep that logic closer to where the destination-specific configurations are generated.
This functionality has been released in v3.71.0 of the Terraform AWS Provider. Please see the Terraform documentation on provider versioning or reach out if you need any assistance upgrading. For further feature requests or bug reports with this functionality, please create a new GitHub issue following the template. Thank you! |
I'm going to lock this pull request because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues. |
Community Note
Closes #7997
Relates #7953
Release note for CHANGELOG:
Output from acceptance testing: