Api gateway authorizer authorizer_result_ttl_in_seconds is not set to 0 on first run

[kevinkuszyk]

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 other comments that do not add relevant new information or questions, 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

Terraform Version

Terraform v0.12.24
+ provider.aws v2.55.0

Affected Resource(s)

• aws_api_gateway_authorizer.api_authorizer

Terraform Configuration Files

resource "aws_api_gateway_authorizer" "api_authorizer" {
  name                             = "authorizer"
  rest_api_id                      = aws_api_gateway_rest_api.api.id
  authorizer_uri                   = aws_lambda_function.authorizer.invoke_arn
  authorizer_credentials           = aws_iam_role.api_authorizer.arn
  type                             = "REQUEST"
  authorizer_result_ttl_in_seconds = 0
}

There is a repo here with the full source:
https://github.com/kevinkuszyk/terraform-aws-apigateway-authorizer-cache

Expected Behavior

I was expecting the authorizer to be created with the authorizer_result_ttl_in_seconds set to zero.

Actual Behavior

It doesn't seem to be set. It shows like this in the aws console:

And a terraform plan after applying the config gives this (300 is the default value):

  # aws_api_gateway_authorizer.api_authorizer will be updated in-place
  ~ resource "aws_api_gateway_authorizer" "api_authorizer" {
        authorizer_credentials           = "arn:aws:iam::************:role/api-authorizer"
      ~ authorizer_result_ttl_in_seconds = 300 -> 0
        authorizer_uri                   = "arn:aws:apigateway:eu-west-2:lambda:path/2015-03-31/functions/arn:aws:lambda:eu-west-2:************::function:authorizer/invocations"
        id                               = "7q1ebw"
        identity_source                  = "method.request.header.Authorization"
        name                             = "authorizer"
        provider_arns                    = []
        rest_api_id                      = "gdrd3ai27a"
        type                             = "REQUEST"
    }

Plan: 0 to add, 1 to change, 0 to destroy.

Running terraform apply again will make the change, so it appears to be an issue with creating new resources.

Steps to Reproduce

1. Clone my example repo
2. Run terraform apply
3. Run terraform plan

References

• Custom Authorizer for API Gateway does not insert '0' when specified in script #705
• Fix api_gateway_authorizer caching ttl in case explicitly set to 0 #8267
• aws_api_gateway_authorizer: fix authorizer_result_ttl_in_seconds cache disable #9605

Other notes

I would attempt a fix, but I can't see anything wrong in the code. If someone can provide some guidance I will do what I can.

• https://github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-aws/blob/master/aws/resource_aws_api_gateway_authorizer.go#L71-L75
• https://github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-aws/blob/master/aws/resource_aws_api_gateway_authorizer.go#L112-L113

[kevinkuszyk]

I've done some testing with the aws cli this morning and i can recreate this issue in the aws console by not setting the authorizerResultTtlInSeconds property in my cli command.

/cc @DrFaust92

[anGie44]

Fix has been merged and will release with upcoming v3.0.0 of the AWS Terraform Provider

[ghost]

This has been released in version 3.0.0 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 for triage. Thanks!

[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. Thanks!