for the test I created, I have a failure. Don't know what the convention is to create acceptance tests for data sources. But from what I found I only need to make the implicit dependency on the data source so that it creates the resource first and then looks for it. But seems to be not finding it. Any pointers?

Output:
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./aws -v -run=TestAccDataSourceAwsEip_tags -timeout 120m
=== RUN TestAccDataSourceAwsEip_tags
--- FAIL: TestAccDataSourceAwsEip_tags (9.75s)
testing.go:513: Step 0 error: Error applying: 1 error(s) occurred:

	* data.aws_eip.by_tag: data.aws_eip.by_tag: no matching Elastic IP found
testing.go:573: Error destroying resource! WARNING: Dangling resources
	may exist. The full state and error is shown below.
	
	Error: Error refreshing: 1 error(s) occurred:
	
	* data.aws_eip.by_tag: 1 error(s) occurred:
	
	* data.aws_eip.by_tag: data.aws_eip.by_tag: no matching Elastic IP found
	
	State: <nil>

FAIL
exit status 1

As stated in PR#3525, the Terraform bug was not known to me. Adding an explicit depends_on for the data source was necessary for the template to run; but this caused issues when refreshing the state. To solve this, just an implicit dependency on a computed value was necessary to work around it.

Test result:

==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./aws -v -run=TestAccDataSourceAwsEip_tags -timeout 120m
=== RUN TestAccDataSourceAwsEip_tags
--- PASS: TestAccDataSourceAwsEip_tags (21.00s)
PASS
ok github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-aws/aws 21.032s

Hi, is it possible to merge this PR? We would like to use this functionality

This has been released in version 1.44.0 of the AWS provider. Please see the Terraform documentation on provider versioning or reach out if you need any assistance upgrading.

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!