Split out top-level aws_route resource

[phinze]

Same logic as splitting out other top level resources:

• routes don't all have to be known at route table definition time
• routes can be dynamically added and removed
• individual routes can be managed on route tables that terraform does not manage

[willmcg]

+1

I swear you guys are reading my mind. I have an exact use for this case where I need to add a route to an pre-existing route table for a VPC peering connection created with Terraform. In this case I own both of the VPCs being peered but only one of them is created by Terraform and so has its own pre-existing route table that needs the peering route to be created.

[gkze]

huge +1 :)

[gkze]

@phinze I took a stab at this -- and since Route is not a top-level resource in the EC2 API, it doesn't have an ID that it can be identified by. How do you think the resourceAwsRouteRead should be implemented then? I was thinking pass it the route table ID that it's an entry in, and then check whether the route is present in there, but I'm not too sure on how clean that is

[phinze]

@gkze - great to hear you're interesting in helping out! 😀

It's correct that we need to build our own identifier in this case. You should be able to look to the implementation of aws_security_group_rule which is very similar.

Let me know if that helps - happy to go into more detail here too.

[gkze]

Thanks @phinze! That's definitely helpful.

On a semi-related note, in a schema -- what's the difference between Optional being false vs. Required being true (or vice versa)? I would assume they're the same but I'm sure there's a reason for both of them existing...

[phinze]

I agree it's a little confusing with all the booleans. Here's a truth table of the relevant scenarios:

Required	Optional	Computed	Description
F	F	F	Invalid
F	F	T	Exported, read-only field
F	T	F	Optional, user specified field (if unspecified, implies that user requested an empty value)
F	T	T	Optional, if unspecified, will be calculated
T	F	F	Required, user-specified field
T	F	T	Invalid
T	T	F	Invalid
T	T	T	Invalid

[gkze]

This is awesome @phinze! Another question: I see there is a MigrateState field in a Resource. Does this apply here? Not sure how exactly it's being used in the aws_security_group_rule resource

[phinze]

If you take a look at the docs for MigrateState and SchemaVersion, you'll see those exist to provide us with hooks for maintaining backwards compatibility as the state config changes. Since you're implementing a new resource, you don't have to worry about them at all. 👍

[gkze]

sweet! 🙏

[steve-jansen]

FYI
PR #3548 is an update to #2454 to implement an aws_route resource.

[catsby]

Hey all! We merged #3548 some time ago, just forgot to close the loop here.

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 have found a problem that seems similar to this, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.