New Resource aws_elasticache_serverless_cache

[meetreks]

Description

This PR is to add a new resource aws_eelasticache_serverless to the ElasicCache Family.

Relations

Closes #34590

References

Announcement
API Reference

Output from Acceptance Testing

% make testacc TESTS=TestAccXXX PKG=ec2

...

$ make testacc PKG=elasticache TESTS=TestAccServerlessElastiCache_
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./internal/service/elasticache/... -v -count 1 -parallel 20 -run='TestAccServerlessElastiCache_' -timeout 360m
=== RUN TestAccServerlessElastiCache_basic
=== PAUSE TestAccServerlessElastiCache_basic
=== RUN TestAccServerlessElastiCache_basicRedis
=== PAUSE TestAccServerlessElastiCache_basicRedis
=== RUN TestAccServerlessElastiCache_full
=== PAUSE TestAccServerlessElastiCache_full
=== RUN TestAccServerlessElastiCache_fullRedis
=== PAUSE TestAccServerlessElastiCache_fullRedis
=== RUN TestAccServerlessElastiCache_update
=== PAUSE TestAccServerlessElastiCache_update
=== RUN TestAccServerlessElastiCache_dissapears
=== PAUSE TestAccServerlessElastiCache_dissapears
=== CONT TestAccServerlessElastiCache_basic
=== CONT TestAccServerlessElastiCache_fullRedis
=== CONT TestAccServerlessElastiCache_dissapears
=== CONT TestAccServerlessElastiCache_full
=== CONT TestAccServerlessElastiCache_update
=== CONT TestAccServerlessElastiCache_basicRedis
--- PASS: TestAccServerlessElastiCache_dissapears (351.69s)
--- PASS: TestAccServerlessElastiCache_basic (390.85s)
--- PASS: TestAccServerlessElastiCache_basicRedis (439.94s)
--- PASS: TestAccServerlessElastiCache_full (468.11s)
--- PASS: TestAccServerlessElastiCache_fullRedis (469.44s)
--- PASS: TestAccServerlessElastiCache_update (516.67s)
PASS
ok github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws/internal/service/elasticache 516.814s

[github-actions]

Community Note

Voting for Prioritization

• Please vote on this pull request by adding a 👍 reaction to the original post to help the community and maintainers prioritize this pull request.
• Please see our prioritization guide for information on how we prioritize.
• 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.

For Submitters

• Review the contribution guide relating to the type of change you are making to ensure all of the necessary steps have been taken.
• For new resources and data sources, use skaff to generate scaffolding with comments detailing common expectations.
• Whether or not the branch has been rebased will not impact prioritization, but doing so is always a welcome surprise.

[junoriosity]

@meetreks I really would love to make use of the aws_elasticache_serverless resource. Many thanks for all your great support. 🙂

Could you tell me, when this will be possible?

[meetreks]

@ewbankkit when you get a min, can you kindly review and merge please?

[noizo]

should be something like 7.1 imo

[meetreks]

Yeah -- you are right, its a copy pasta error butt fixed it now. I ran the testts with verssion 7 and amended to the same. For some reason when I ran the tests it said engine version 7.1 is not supported.

[hazmei]

@meetreks i believe it should be engine version 7. Was trying out awscc provider elasticache serverless resource earlier and it only accepted 7 not 7.1 for major engine version.

[johnsonaj]

Hi @meetreks 👋🏾 , thank you for the contribution! A policy change was made earlier this year that now requires all net-new resources to be written using the Terraform Plugin Framework. Since this is a new resource, it will need to be converted to using the Framework. You can always reference the Contributor Guide when choosing which plugin version to use.

The migration guild should help with getting started when moving this SDKv2 resource to Framework. Please reach out if there are any issues.

[meetreks]

@johnsonaj you mean I need to discard the current changes and regen using SDK V2?

[noizo]

@johnsonaj you mean I need to discard the current changes and regen using SDK V2?

I think it's about migrating from SDK V2 to https://developer.hashicorp.com/terraform/plugin/framework
Do You plan to continue work on it?

[meetreks]

@johnsonaj you mean I need to discard the current changes and regen using SDK V2?

I think it's about migrating from SDK V2 to https://developer.hashicorp.com/terraform/plugin/framework Do You plan to continue work on it?

Yes I am, but having issues with using tfsdk2fw to scaffold the v1 SDK to use new version of the plugin framework

[github-actions]

Thank you for your contribution! 🚀

Please note that typically Go dependency changes are handled in this repository by dependabot or the maintainers. This is to prevent pull request merge conflicts and further delay reviews of contributions. Remove any changes to the go.mod or go.sum files and commit them into this pull request.

Additional details:

• Check open pull requests with the dependencies label to view other dependency updates.
• If this pull request includes an update the AWS Go SDK (or any other dependency) version, only updates submitted via dependabot will be merged. This pull request will need to remove these changes and will need to be rebased after the existing dependency update via dependabot has been merged for this pull request to be reviewed.
• If this pull request is for supporting a new AWS service:
  • Ensure the new AWS service changes are following the Contributing Guide section on new services, in particular that the dependency addition and initial provider support are in a separate pull request from other changes (e.g. new resources). Contributions not following this item will not be reviewed until the changes are split.
  • If this pull request is already a separate pull request from the above item, you can ignore this message.

[johnsonaj]

LGTM 🚀

% make testacc TESTARGS='-run=TestAccElastiCacheServerlessCache_' PKG=elasticache

==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./internal/service/elasticache/... -v -count 1 -parallel 20  -run=TestAccElastiCacheServerlessCache_ -timeout 360m
--- PASS: TestAccElastiCacheServerlessCache_disappears (329.98s)
--- PASS: TestAccElastiCacheServerlessCache_fullRedis (341.09s)
--- PASS: TestAccElastiCacheServerlessCache_basic (343.06s)
--- PASS: TestAccElastiCacheServerlessCache_basicRedis (396.92s)
--- PASS: TestAccElastiCacheServerlessCache_full (420.86s)
--- PASS: TestAccElastiCacheServerlessCache_update (433.63s)
--- PASS: TestAccElastiCacheServerlessCache_tags (480.97s)
PASS
ok  	github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws/internal/service/elasticache	484.543s

[aokellermann]

@johnsonaj thanks for your work on this! any idea when this feature will be released?

[johnsonaj]

@meetreks thank you for the contribution! 🎉

[minhhieu76qng]

@johnsonaj Thanks for your works. Could you tell us when this resource will be released?

[johnsonaj]

@johnsonaj Thanks for your works. Could you tell us when this resource will be released?

Hi @minhhieu76qng. This resource will be available in this week's release, v5.32.0

[github-actions]

This functionality has been released in v5.32.0 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!

[autarchprinceps]

I don't think its quite working yet

╷
│ Error: Provider produced inconsistent result after apply
│ 
│ When applying changes to module.elasticache.aws_elasticache_serverless_cache.cache, provider
│ "provider[\"registry.terraform.io/hashicorp/aws\"]" produced an unexpected new value: .cache_usage_limits: block count changed
│ from 1 to 0.
│ 
│ This is a bug in the provider, which should be reported in the provider's own issue tracker.

[autarchprinceps]

A feature like name_prefix instead of hardcoding a name and having to delete then recreate would be helpful as well.
Is there a particular reason the (read_)endpoint is a list, despite only ever containing one entry?

[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.