aws_ssm_association resource doesn't support AutomationTargetParameterName

[ghost]

This issue was originally opened by @Draftkings as hashicorp/terraform#22935. It was migrated here as a result of the provider split. The original body of the issue is below.

---

It appears the aws_ssm_association resource doesn't support selecting a Automation document Parameter that will be define how an automation document will branch out.

The AWS Api for CreateAssociation specifies a AutomationTargetParameterName parameter which is utilized by an SSM association when the SSM Document type being targeted is Automation and the Rate Control method for execution is selected.

When trying to apply my aws_ssm_association resource that is pointing to an automation document, I receive the following error.

Error: Error updating SSM association: ValidationException: Must specify both Automation Target Parameter Name and Targets status code: 400, request id:

Sample resource

resource "aws_ssm_association" "my-state-manager-assoication" {
  name = "My-SSM-Automation-Document"

  parameters = {
    AutomationAssumeRole = "<arn_of_my_iam_role>"
  }

  targets {
    key      = "tag:myTagName"
    values = ["myTagValue"]
  }

  schedule_expression = "rate(60 minutes)"
}

[bflad]

Support for the new automation_target_parameter_name argument in the aws_ssm_association resource has been merged and will release with version 2.47.0 of the Terraform AWS Provider, tomorrow. Thanks to @DrFaust92 for the implementation. 👍

[ghost]

This has been released in version 2.47.0 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!