New Resource: aws_cognito_user_pool #1419
Conversation
grubernaut
added
the
enhancement
|
In case you need any encouragement @Ninir, we came up against this missing feature this week too, and we're keen to see it finished and merged :) |
|
Thanks @jtopper Will let you know on how it goes! |
Ninir
force-pushed
the
f-cognito-identity-provider-user-pool
branch
2 times, most recently
from
56c6930
to
63c636c
Compare
|
@Ninir Will this work also allow the creation of app clients? http://docs.aws.amazon.com/cli/latest/reference/cognito-idp/create-user-pool-client.html |
|
I've started work on user pool clients in the following fork. I need to add some unit tests and will then submit a pull request: https://github.com/psyvision/terraform-provider-aws |
Ninir
force-pushed
the
f-cognito-identity-provider-user-pool
branch
from
63c636c
to
7e7867a
Compare
Ninir
force-pushed
the
f-cognito-identity-provider-user-pool
branch
from
7e7867a
to
f38ec29
Compare
Ninir
force-pushed
the
f-cognito-identity-provider-user-pool
branch
from
f38ec29
to
3752b89
Compare
|
Does this feature support import? |
Ninir
force-pushed
the
f-cognito-identity-provider-user-pool
branch
from
7d7add3
to
7d17d1d
Compare
|
Hi @dave-lyric It does support it now :) For any folk around here: I still need to manage AdminCreateUserConfig tests & play a bit with all the edge use-cases... but it's almost mergeable :) Thanks for waiting! |
radeksimko
added
the
size/XXL
radeksimko
changed the title
| Type: schema.TypeList, | ||
| Optional: true, | ||
| Computed: true, | ||
| MinItems: 0, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nitpick, but 0 is default here, so it seems unnecessary.
| "admin_create_user_config": { | ||
| Type: schema.TypeList, | ||
| Optional: true, | ||
| Computed: true, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just out of curiosity what's the value that comes back from the API if not defined?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The structure gets back with children having default values:
"AdminCreateUserConfig": {
"UnusedAccountValidityDays": 7,
"AllowAdminCreateUserOnly": false
},
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fair enough - as long as Computed is justified 🤷♂️
| "invite_message_template": { | ||
| Type: schema.TypeList, | ||
| Optional: true, | ||
| MinItems: 0, |
| }, | ||
|
|
||
| "alias_attributes": { | ||
| Type: schema.TypeList, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I assume the ordering is important here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since you write it down, yeh it seems so!
| }, | ||
|
|
||
| "auto_verified_attributes": { | ||
| Type: schema.TypeList, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the order important here?
aws/structure.go
Outdated
| data := v.([]interface{}) | ||
|
|
||
| if len(data) > 0 { | ||
| m, _ := data[0].(map[string]interface{}) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why are we ignoring the cast error here?
aws/structure.go
Outdated
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func expandCognitoUserPoolSchema(inputs []interface{}) []*cognitoidentityprovider.SchemaAttributeType { | ||
| configs := make([]*cognitoidentityprovider.SchemaAttributeType, 0) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nitpick, but can't we already allocate fixed-size array here, since we know how many inputs are coming in? i.e.
configs := make([]*cognitoidentityprovider.SchemaAttributeType, len(inputs), len(inputs))then you'd just use
configs[i] = configinstead of append.
But it's really a nitpick, just a matter of memory efficiency.
aws/structure.go
Outdated
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func flattenCognitoUserPoolSchema(inputs []*cognitoidentityprovider.SchemaAttributeType) []map[string]interface{} { | ||
| values := make([]map[string]interface{}, 0) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Likewise - just nitpick about memory efficiency here.
| es = append(es, fmt.Errorf("%q cannot be longer than 2000 characters", k)) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if !regexp.MustCompile(`[\p{L}\p{M}\p{S}\p{N}\p{P}\s*]*\{####\}[\p{L}\p{M}\p{S}\p{N}\p{P}\s*]*`).MatchString(value) { |
| "Name" = "FooBar" | ||
| "Project" = "Terraform" | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a more minimalistic example we can put here or are those all required arguments?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Those are not even needed: just wanted to provide a good & "working" example. Thought we might want a basic one and this "verbosed" one. Thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about keeping the "verbose" example in /examples?
radeksimko
changed the title
Ninir
force-pushed
the
f-cognito-identity-provider-user-pool
branch
from
8f3936b
to
1318ed5
Compare
|
Here we go! |
|
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! |
ghost
locked and limited conversation to collaborators
Description
This implements Cognito User pool with original work from @Harrison-Miller.
This work is missing a few attributes & options that will be added ASAP.
API Documentation
Test
TODOs