Bug: Create own struct to be able to add omitempty json tag on attributes

[stromp]

Description

The whole struct was returned which marshalled attributes with a null values. Those attributes should be omitted, since you can not use them when you provider the json to AWS.

Relations

Relates #33565

Output from Acceptance Testing

=== RUN TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_basic
=== PAUSE TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_basic
=== CONT TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_basic
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_basic (34.30s)
PASS
ok github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws/internal/service/ssm 34.398s
...

[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.

[justinretzolk]

Hey @stromp 👋 Thank you for your contribution here! I'm not one of the people who will be doing a final review on this, but I wanted to note that I added the enhancement label rather than the bug one, since this is a change to make the resource more friendly to use, and not something that causes the provider to throw errors. If I've misunderstood, please do let me know and we can update the labels.

[stromp]

Hey @stromp 👋 Thank you for your contribution here! I'm not one of the people who will be doing a final review on this, but I wanted to note that I added the enhancement label rather than the bug one, since this is a change to make the resource more friendly to use, and not something that causes the provider to throw errors. If I've misunderstood, please do let me know and we can update the labels.

hi @justinretzolk.

I guess it is a bit how you look at it. Currently the resource will give you a different JSON result then the original JSON returned by the AWS API would. Since the purpose of the attribute is that it returns the API JSON I would personally classify this as a bug.

[stromp]

Hey @stromp 👋 Thank you for your contribution here! I'm not one of the people who will be doing a final review on this, but I wanted to note that I added the enhancement label rather than the bug one, since this is a change to make the resource more friendly to use, and not something that causes the provider to throw errors. If I've misunderstood, please do let me know and we can update the labels.

hi @justinretzolk.

I guess it is a bit how you look at it. Currently the resource will give you a different JSON result then the original JSON returned by the AWS API would. Since the purpose of the attribute is that it returns the API JSON I would personally classify this as a bug.

hi @justinretzolk

I have just rebased the branch since it became out of sync due to the aws sdk update. Can I ask for some attention to get this merged?

[jar-b]

LGTM 🎉

% make testacc PKG=ssm TESTS=TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_
make: Verifying source code with gofmt...
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go1.22.2 test ./internal/service/ssm/... -v -count 1 -parallel 20 -run='TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_'  -timeout 360m

--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_disappears (31.31s)
=== CONT  TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags_null
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_rejectPatchesAction (37.77s)
=== CONT  TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags_DefaultTags_providerOnly
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_approvedPatchesNonSec (39.94s)
=== CONT  TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags_DefaultTags_updateToProviderOnly
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags_DefaultTags_nullOverlappingResourceTag (43.85s)
=== CONT  TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags_DefaultTags_updateToResourceOnly
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags_DefaultTags_nullNonOverlappingResourceTag (43.91s)
=== CONT  TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags_DefaultTags_overlapping
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags_DefaultTags_emptyProviderOnlyTag (45.51s)
=== CONT  TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags_EmptyTag_OnUpdate_Replace
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags_ComputedTag_OnCreate (49.76s)
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags_DefaultTags_emptyResourceTag (50.56s)
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_operatingSystem (56.32s)
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_sources (59.38s)
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_approveUntilDateParam (59.69s)
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_approvalRuleEmpty (67.48s)
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_basic (67.74s)
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags_AddOnUpdate (68.98s)
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags_ComputedTag_OnUpdate_Replace (70.36s)
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags_EmptyTag_OnCreate (72.92s)
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags_null (42.16s)
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags_ComputedTag_OnUpdate_Add (75.00s)
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags_EmptyTag_OnUpdate_Add (85.97s)
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags_DefaultTags_updateToResourceOnly (42.60s)
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags_DefaultTags_updateToProviderOnly (46.77s)
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags_EmptyTag_OnUpdate_Replace (41.84s)
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags_DefaultTags_nonOverlapping (89.47s)
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags (100.06s)
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags_DefaultTags_overlapping (59.82s)
--- PASS: TestAccSSMPatchBaseline_tags_DefaultTags_providerOnly (77.53s)
PASS
ok      github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws/internal/service/ssm        121.254s

[jar-b]

Thanks for your contribution, @stromp! 👍

[github-actions]

This functionality has been released in v5.61.0 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!

[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.