r/aws_dlm_lifecycle_policy: retain rule

[thatderek]

Community Note

• Please vote on this pull request by adding a 👍 reaction to the original pull request comment to help the community and maintainers prioritize this request
• Please do not leave "+1" or other comments that do not add relevant new information or questions, they generate extra noise for pull request followers and do not help prioritize the request

Closes #11456

Release note for CHANGELOG:

* resource/aws_dlm_lifecycle_policy: Adds ability to create RetainRules as part of policy.

Output from acceptance testing:

root@8d193c0dc2df:/go/src/github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-aws# make testacc TEST=./aws TESTARGS='-run=TestAccAWSDlmLifecyclePolicy_'
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./aws -v -count 1 -parallel 20 -run=TestAccAWSDlmLifecyclePolicy_ -timeout 120m
=== RUN   TestAccAWSDlmLifecyclePolicy_Basic
=== PAUSE TestAccAWSDlmLifecyclePolicy_Basic
=== RUN   TestAccAWSDlmLifecyclePolicy_Full
=== PAUSE TestAccAWSDlmLifecyclePolicy_Full
=== RUN   TestAccAWSDlmLifecyclePolicy_Retain
=== PAUSE TestAccAWSDlmLifecyclePolicy_Retain
=== RUN   TestAccAWSDlmLifecyclePolicy_Tags
=== PAUSE TestAccAWSDlmLifecyclePolicy_Tags
=== CONT  TestAccAWSDlmLifecyclePolicy_Basic
=== CONT  TestAccAWSDlmLifecyclePolicy_Tags
=== CONT  TestAccAWSDlmLifecyclePolicy_Retain
=== CONT  TestAccAWSDlmLifecyclePolicy_Full
--- PASS: TestAccAWSDlmLifecyclePolicy_Basic (29.31s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSDlmLifecyclePolicy_Retain (45.73s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSDlmLifecyclePolicy_Full (46.13s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSDlmLifecyclePolicy_Tags (67.44s)
PASS
ok  	github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-aws/aws	67.488s
root@8d193c0dc2df:/go/src/github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-aws#

[thatderek]

Note: Because this issue remains outstanding, I dealt with conflicting attributes of RetainRule through ForceNews. Perhaps there is a more sensible mechanism though?

[tomelliff]

This looks nice from a quick glance but had some small feedback.

Looking forward to this landing so I can ditch weird multiplication in my count to get to the time based retention that I really want.

[tomelliff]

This should probably have ConflictsWith: []string{"policy_details.0.schedule.0.retain_rule.0.interval", "policy_details.0.schedule.0.retain_rule.0.interval_unit"}, and then ConflictsWith: []string{"policy_details.0.schedule.0.retain_rule.0.count"}, on the interval and interval_unit blocks.

[tomelliff]

Just saw your comment above but in this case nearly all of the parameters in the DLM API that is a list is also required to be 1 element in the list (AWS sure do like future proofing things at the expense of more complex APIs) so you can just hardcode the list element as 0 as in my comment here.

[tomelliff]

I just realised that that's not currently true because schedule is missing a MaxItems: 1 despite that being required by the API which I think I missed in my initial pull request that added this resource.

We should add that in this pull request I think. It then makes the ConflictsWith robust as well as giving plan time validation in the event someone adds multiple schedule blocks to a policy_details block.

[tomelliff]

This looks like an odd diff here. Is this accidental?

[NunoPinheiro]

Hey, what is the status with this PR?
According to the issue, people have been falling into the problem of backups retained forever with the count based approach, so this looks important.

What would be missing on this PR to make it approvable?

[zhelding]

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 aws directory to a large number of separate directories in internal/service, each corresponding to a particular AWS service. This separation of code has also allowed for us to simplify the names of underlying functions -- while still avoiding namespace collisions.

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.

[ewbankkit]

@thatderek Thanks for the contribution 🎉 👏.
These changes have been rolled into #23880.

[github-actions]

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.
If you have found a problem that seems related to this change, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.