provider/aws: IAM Instance Profile Waiter

[stack72]

May fix #4230: Adding the aws-go-sdk Waiter for IAM Instance Profile

make testacc TEST=./builtin/providers/aws TESTARGS='-run=AWSIAMInstanceProfile' 2>~/tf.log
go generate ./...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./builtin/providers/aws -v -run=AWSIAMInstanceProfile -timeout 90m
=== RUN   TestAccAWSIAMInstanceProfile_basic
--- PASS: TestAccAWSIAMInstanceProfile_basic (4.87s)
PASS
ok      github.com/hashicorp/terraform/builtin/providers/aws    4.885s

[stack72]

@catsby / @phinze / @jen20 I'd like your input on this. Basically I could have added the waiter after the initial create and before the roles. But I think that pushing it until the end of the Create (after roles are set) make it more useful

Thoughts?

This should help stop hacks on IAM profiles using null_provisioners

[catsby]

I'm initially hesitant on using the SDK waiters as is, simply because at time of writing they offer no hook for any logging. Any resources that take considerable time (like RDS) just appear to hang while waiting...

For IAM though, it's probably barely noticeable. I'll check this out but at first glance it looks good. I did post a question in 4230 though. There is code in aws_instance that should account for this. I'm fine removing that polling code if this code here does a better job, but maybe they aren't mutually exclusive. We you able to reproduce the error(s) in #4230?

[stack72]

@catsby I cannot reproduce #4230 TBH - I have used IAM Instance Profiles and Instances for a while for some small based instances and they seem to work ok. I am happy to close this PR for now :)

[catsby]

@stack72 #4230 was closed by the author as they can't reproduce at this time. Do you think we should still try to include this?

[stack72]

I would say no. Let's not include any of the waiters yet. You pointed out
code in AWS_instance that checks for this.

Let's close this for now
On 11 Dec 2015 10:20 pm, "Clint" notifications@github.com wrote:

@stack72 https://github.com/stack72 #4230
#4230 was closed by the
author as they can't reproduce at this time. Do you think we should still
try to include this?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#4235 (comment).

[catsby]

@stack72 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.