Add storage_encrypted as an optional parameter to aws_rds_cluster #5520
Conversation
Add documentation around the `storage_encrypted` parameter
| @@ -71,6 +71,12 @@ func resourceAwsRDSCluster() *schema.Resource { | |||
| Computed: true, | |||
| }, | |||
|
|
|||
| "storage_encrypted": &schema.Schema{ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The documentation update suggests that the default for this value is false - I think we need to actually have this in the schema as follows:
"storage_encrypted": &schema.Schema{
Type: schema.TypeBool,
Optional: true,
Default: false,
ForceNew: true,
}
thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The default is false if the parameter is omitted from the request, so I see two options. I could either update the schema to include the default value, or I could only set the StorageEncrypted value on the CreateDBClusterInput object if a value is provided. Which do you think is best?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
personally, I would suggest to be explicit in the terraform schema. This will safeguard against changes in AWS behaviour :)
|
I wasn't sure about the interplay between the values of
|
|
@bsiegel I think we need to add some tests to make sure this works as expected when used in combination with these properties. I think these limitations should then be added to the docs |
These limitations are on the DBInstance itself, not on the cluster. In this case, the DBInstance is exposed via the I would definitely be up for adding some tests though. I'll see what I can come up with. |
|
@stack72 Added some tests, let me know if you think those are sufficient. |
|
Hi @bsiegel - running the |
|
Add storage_encrypted as an optional parameter to aws_rds_cluster
|
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. |
ghost
locked and limited conversation to collaborators
Provides a basic implementation of #4414, matching the current implementation for
aws_db_instanceadded in #1041. This basic implementation allows the user to set the value of the StorageEncrypted flag at creation time, but does not allow customizing the KMS parameters as requested in #4414. I feel like that should be done in a separate PR, so that it can be added in a uniform way to all AWS resources that can accept KMS parameters.