provider/aws: Add support for name_prefix to aws_sqs_queue

[stack72]

% make testacc TEST=./aws TESTARGS='-run=TestAccAWSSQSQueue'                                                                           130 ↵ ✹
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./aws -v -run=TestAccAWSSQSQueue -timeout 120m
=== RUN   TestAccAWSSQSQueue_importBasic
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSQSQueue_importBasic (64.06s)
=== RUN   TestAccAWSSQSQueue_importFifo
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSQSQueue_importFifo (57.57s)
=== RUN   TestAccAWSSQSQueuePolicy_basic
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSQSQueuePolicy_basic (63.44s)
=== RUN   TestAccAWSSQSQueue_basic
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSQSQueue_basic (127.25s)
=== RUN   TestAccAWSSQSQueue_namePrefix
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSQSQueue_namePrefix (50.10s)
=== RUN   TestAccAWSSQSQueue_policy
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSQSQueue_policy (72.06s)
=== RUN   TestAccAWSSQSQueue_redrivePolicy
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSQSQueue_redrivePolicy (64.35s)
=== RUN   TestAccAWSSQSQueue_Policybasic
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSQSQueue_Policybasic (83.56s)
=== RUN   TestAccAWSSQSQueue_FIFO
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSQSQueue_FIFO (37.44s)
=== RUN   TestAccAWSSQSQueue_FIFOExpectNameError
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSQSQueue_FIFOExpectNameError (13.06s)
=== RUN   TestAccAWSSQSQueue_FIFOWithContentBasedDeduplication
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSQSQueue_FIFOWithContentBasedDeduplication (49.01s)
=== RUN   TestAccAWSSQSQueue_ExpectContentBasedDeduplicationError
--- PASS: TestAccAWSSQSQueue_ExpectContentBasedDeduplicationError (15.86s)
PASS
ok  	github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-aws/aws	697.786s

[radeksimko]

I'm not completely against adding name_prefix, I guess/hope the benefit people get (compared to using random provider) is guarantees around randomness length and validity - so fair enough.

I think that recreation should work out of the box for static names too though. If it's just 60 secs, I'd add a retry to the creation API call and retry on AWS.SimpleQueueService.QueueDeletedRecently + add an acceptance test.

What do you think?

[catsby]

What do you think?

I'm mixed... I see your point about recreation and "static" names, but I do like our existing pattern of name_prefix: "Name it this ,uniquely, I don't really care as long as I can identify it"

[radeksimko]

So I wasn't suggesting we avoid name_prefix. It does have a value - so I'm 👌 with merging this PR, but I don't think it's fixing #831 because not everyone can have or want random names.

[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!