r/aws_iot_topic_rule: add http action type

[dbasedow]

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 #11940

Release note for CHANGELOG:

resource/aws_iot_topic_rule: Add http action type

Output from acceptance testing:

$ make testacc TESTARGS='-run=TestAccAWSIoTTopicRule_http'
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./aws -v -count 1 -parallel 20 -run=TestAccAWSIoTTopicRule_http -timeout 120m
=== RUN   TestAccAWSIoTTopicRule_http
=== PAUSE TestAccAWSIoTTopicRule_http
=== CONT  TestAccAWSIoTTopicRule_http
--- PASS: TestAccAWSIoTTopicRule_http (70.00s)
PASS
ok      github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-aws/aws       70.033s

[tmbull]

Is there a reason this hasn't been merged in? It looks like the work was completed almost a year ago.

[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.

[tmbull]

@zhelding Thank you for the reply. I am a little confused about your comment regarding prioritization though. I am more than happy to resolve the merge conflicts in this MR, but do not want to waste my time if the MR still will not get merged in. If I resolve the merge conflicts, will this get merged in? Or do I need to wait for this to get prioritized before resolving the merge conflicts?

[zhelding]

Hi @tmbull!

To clarify: we would greatly appreciate the efforts of you and other contributors in resolving the merge conflicts on this (and other) pull requests; however, making these changes will not result in a particular pull request being reviewed earlier than it would be otherwise.

[ewbankkit]

@dbasedow Thanks for the contribution 🎉 👏.
This work has been rolled into #24395.

[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.