resource/aws_security_group_rule: Support all non-zero from_port and to_port configurations with protocol ALL/-1

[bflad]

Reference: #6407 (comment)

This completely suppresses from_port and to_port differences when protocol is ALL or -1. The API ignores them in this scenario, so previously it was possible to specify whatever non-zero values you wished (-1 for both, 0 and 65535, etc), but previously the logic was also not showing a difference.

Previously:

--- FAIL: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_Description_AllPorts_NonZeroPorts (16.96s)
    testing.go:538: Step 0 error: After applying this step and refreshing, the plan was not empty:

        DIFF:

        DESTROY/CREATE: aws_security_group_rule.test
          cidr_blocks.#:            "1" => "1"
          cidr_blocks.0:            "0.0.0.0/0" => "0.0.0.0/0"
          description:              "description1" => "description1"
          from_port:                "0" => "-1" (forces new resource)
          protocol:                 "-1" => "-1"
          security_group_id:        "sg-04722579708a472f8" => "sg-04722579708a472f8"
          self:                     "false" => "false"
          source_security_group_id: "" => "<computed>"
          to_port:                  "0" => "-1" (forces new resource)
          type:                     "ingress" => "ingress"

Output from acceptance testing:

--- PASS: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_ExpectInvalidTypeError (1.70s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_ExpectInvalidCIDR (1.84s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_MultiIngress (23.08s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_EgressDescription (23.84s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_Issue5310 (24.41s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_Ingress_Classic (24.04s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_MultipleRuleSearching_AllProtocolCrash (25.85s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_Ingress_VPC (27.91s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_IngressDescription (28.45s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_Description_AllPorts_NonZeroPorts (30.69s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_Egress (36.77s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_IngressDescription_updates (37.11s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_SelfSource (42.98s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_EgressDescription_updates (43.95s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_SelfReference (44.43s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_Ingress_Ipv6 (45.83s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_PartialMatching_Source (50.10s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_PartialMatching_basic (51.93s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_Description_AllPorts (52.00s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_PrefixListEgress (57.10s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_Ingress_Protocol (37.05s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_MultiDescription (89.38s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSecurityGroupRule_Race (275.19s)

[bflad]

Non-zero for both from_port and to_port also covers the previous scenario, which is why this was updated.

[mbfrahry]

LGTM

[analytically]

Fixed my issue, nice one!

[bflad]

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.

[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!