r/secretsmanager_secret - policy wait for IAM eventual consistency

[DrFaust92]

use %w for errors
wait for policy that relies on iam role (eventual consistency)

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 #14449

Release note for CHANGELOG:

resouce_aws_secretsmanager_secret - policy wait for IAM eventual consistency

Output from acceptance testing:

$ make testacc TESTARGS='-run=TestAccAwsSecretsManagerSecret_policy'
--- PASS: TestAccAwsSecretsManagerSecret_policy (127.27s)

[bflad]

Just a small switch to constants, then good to go. 🚀

Output from acceptance testing:

--- PASS: TestAccAwsSecretsManagerSecret_withNamePrefix (17.40s)
--- PASS: TestAccAwsSecretsManagerSecret_basic (18.80s)
--- PASS: TestAccAwsSecretsManagerSecret_Description (22.55s)
--- PASS: TestAccAwsSecretsManagerSecret_KmsKeyID (24.23s)
--- PASS: TestAccAwsSecretsManagerSecret_Tags (36.33s)
--- PASS: TestAccAwsSecretsManagerSecret_RecoveryWindowInDays_Recreate (38.88s)
--- PASS: TestAccAwsSecretsManagerSecret_policy (44.96s)
--- PASS: TestAccAwsSecretsManagerSecret_RotationRules (45.94s)
--- PASS: TestAccAwsSecretsManagerSecret_RotationLambdaARN (52.32s)

[DrFaust92]

Thanks @bflad , didnt think of using that. changed according to comments.

[ghost]

This has been released in version 3.1.0 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!