Skip to content

[draft] upgrade to terraform provider v5.91.0 #1741

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

Draft
wants to merge 15 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mbbush
Copy link
Collaborator

@mbbush mbbush commented Mar 19, 2025

Description of your changes

I choose v5.91.0 because it was the most recent at the time I started. I don't see any reason why I won't update to the most recent again before getting this ready.

The two largest issues I ran into when upgrading the terraform provider version are:

  • The upstream terraform provider no longer compiles when the mq_user resource is added. I fixed it with a minor change to the patches, but I don't have a good way to test the resource.
  • The s3_bucket_lifecycle_configuration resource was moved from the terraform sdk to the terraform plugin framework. Simply moving its external name configuration caused errors during codegen, so I've removed it completely on this branch. I'm adding it back in [draft] Re-implement s3 bucket lifecycle configuration using framework with new schema #1765, which I may just merge into here once I get it working.

Still TODO (among other things)

  • Add back the s3 bucket lifecycle configuration resource and test it
  • Validate/document the behavior of existing s3 bucket lifecycle configuration resources during a provider version upgrade. Given the reasons behind the terraform provider re-implementation (AWS api changes that couldn't be correctly handled with the sdk: I think it had something to do with nullability) there may be some nuance here.
  • Check for schema changes in other resources
  • Go through the terraform provider release notes and see if there's anything concerning. If so, validate it.
  • Do we need special handling for the write-only version of attributes? Instance.rds and secretsmanager.SecretVersion are examples. It seems like we should probably remove them entirely from the CRDs.

I have:

  • Read and followed Crossplane's contribution process.
  • Run make reviewable to ensure this PR is ready for review.

How has this code been tested

@mbbush mbbush force-pushed the matt/terraform-provider-5.91 branch from dfdb5ca to 6b711fe Compare March 19, 2025 01:41
mbbush added 10 commits March 18, 2025 18:43
Signed-off-by: Matt Bush <mbbush@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Matt Bush <mbbush@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Matt Bush <mbbush@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Matt Bush <mbbush@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Matt Bush <mbbush@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Matt Bush <mbbush@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Matt Bush <mbbush@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Matt Bush <mbbush@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Matt Bush <mbbush@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Matt Bush <mbbush@gmail.com>
@mbbush mbbush force-pushed the matt/terraform-provider-5.91 branch from 6b711fe to e00ed19 Compare March 19, 2025 16:46
mbbush added 5 commits March 24, 2025 15:11
Signed-off-by: Matt Bush <mbbush@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Matt Bush <mbbush@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Matt Bush <mbbush@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Matt Bush <mbbush@gmail.com>
@mbbush mbbush force-pushed the matt/terraform-provider-5.91 branch from e00ed19 to cd469d8 Compare March 25, 2025 02:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant