d/aws_ram_resource_share: Adding new data source for RAM resource share

[robh007]

Community Note

• Please vote on this pull request by adding a 👍 reaction to the original pull request comment to help the community and maintainers prioritize this request
• Please do not leave "+1" comments, they generate extra noise for pull request followers and do not help prioritize the request

Fixes #8280

Changes proposed in this pull request:

• Adds a new data resource aws_ram_resource_share

Lookup RAM resource shares.

example

data "aws_ram_resource_share" "example" {
  name = "example-name"
  resource_owner = "SELF"
}

Output from acceptance testing:
make testacc TEST=./aws/ TESTARGS='-run=TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Basic' [9:44:23]
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./aws/ -v -parallel 20 -run=TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Basic -timeout 120m
=== RUN TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Basic
=== PAUSE TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Basic
=== CONT TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Basic
--- PASS: TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Basic (33.49s)
PASS
ok github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-aws/aws 33.540s

make testacc TEST=./aws/ TESTARGS='-run=TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Tags' [9:45:51]
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./aws/ -v -parallel 20 -run=TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Tags -timeout 120m
=== RUN TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Tags
=== PAUSE TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Tags
=== CONT TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Tags
--- PASS: TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Tags (30.48s)
PASS
ok github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-aws/aws 30.526s

$ make testacc TESTARGS='-run=TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Basic'
$ make testacc TESTARGS='-run=TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Tags'
...

[bflad]

Hi @robh007 👋 Thanks for submitting this! Overall looking pretty good, just left a few items below and we should be able to get this in. Please reach out if you have any questions or do not have time to implement the feedback.

[bflad]

When using d.Set() with aggregate types (TypeList, TypeSet, TypeMap), we should perform error checking to prevent issues where the code is not properly able to set the Terraform state. e.g.

				if err := d.Set("tags", r.Tags); err != nil {
					return fmt.Errorf("error setting tags: %s", err)
				}

After adding this error checking, you should start receiving type errors as r.Tags is a []*ram.Tag and not an acceptable type for d.Set(). Looking at the existing aws_ram_resource_share resource logic, we should be able to borrow its functionality here with tagsToMapRAM():

Suggested change

	d.Set("tags", r.Tags)
	if err := d.Set("tags", tagsToMapRAM(r.Tags)); err != nil {
	return fmt.Errorf("error setting tags: %s", err)
	}

[robh007]

Hi @bflad, thanks for the feedback & providing help. I've made the suggested changes & re-ran the tests which are passing. Let me know if anything else is needed from me.

=== RUN TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Basic
=== PAUSE TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Basic
=== CONT TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Basic
--- PASS: TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Basic (18.45s)
PASS
ok github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-aws/aws 18.500s

=== RUN TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Tags
=== PAUSE TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Tags
=== CONT TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Tags
--- PASS: TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Tags (14.18s)
PASS
ok github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-aws/aws 14.237s

[bflad]

Looks great, @robh007, thanks! 🚀

--- PASS: TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Tags (16.75s)
--- PASS: TestAccDataSourceAwsRamResourceShare_Basic (17.38s)

[bflad]

This has been released in version 2.11.0 of the Terraform 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!