aws_s3_bucket_lifecycle_configuration empty filter block produces a warning

[adrawbond-alto]

Documentation Link(s)

https://registry.terraform.io/providers/hashicorp/aws/latest/docs/resources/s3_bucket_lifecycle_configuration#filter

Description

The documentation currently states that "The filter configuration block must either be specified as the empty configuration block (filter {}) or with exactly one of prefix...". However, when you specify an empty filter{} the provider now produces a warning after PR #41662.

resource "aws_s3_bucket_lifecycle_configuration" "lifecycle" {
  bucket = aws_s3_bucket.my_bucket.id

  rule {
    id = "archive-all"

    filter {}

    status = "Enabled"

    transition {
      days          = 90
      storage_class = "STANDARD_IA"
    }
  }
}

Results in this warning as of 5.90.0:

│ Warning: Invalid Attribute Combination
│ 
│   with aws_s3_bucket_lifecycle_configuration.lifecycle,
│   on main.tf line 26, in resource "aws_s3_bucket_lifecycle_configuration" "lifecycle":
│   26:     filter {}
│ 
│ No attribute specified when one (and only one) of
│ [rule[0].filter[0].prefix.<.object_size_greater_than,rule[0].filter[0].prefix.<.object_size_less_than,rule[0].filter[0].prefix.<.and,rule[0].filter[0].prefix.<.tag]
│ is required
│ 
│ This will be an error in a future version of the provider
│ 
│ (and one more similar warning elsewhere)

Setting filter { prefix = "" } fixes the warning. This should be mentioned in the documentation.

References

#41662

Would you like to implement a fix?

Yes

[github-actions]

Community Guidelines

This comment is added to every new Issue to provide quick reference to how the Terraform AWS Provider is maintained. Please review the information below, and thank you for contributing to the community that keeps the provider thriving! 🚀

Voting for Prioritization

• Please vote on this Issue by adding a 👍 reaction to the original post to help the community and maintainers prioritize it.
• Please see our prioritization guide for additional information on how the maintainers handle prioritization.
• Please do not leave +1 or other comments that do not add relevant new information or questions; they generate extra noise for others following the Issue and do not help prioritize the request.

Volunteering to Work on This Issue

• If you are interested in working on this issue, please leave a comment.
• If this would be your first contribution, please review the contribution guide.
• For new resources and data sources, use skaff to generate scaffolding with comments detailing common expectations.

[justinretzolk]

Hey @adrawbond-alto 👋 Thank you for taking the time to raise this! This should be fixed in version 5.99.0 of the provider via #42624. Can you give that version of the provider a try and let us know if you still encounter issues?

[yshollander-selerity]

Is 5.99 released? At https://registry.terraform.io/providers/hashicorp/aws/latest/docs, the latest is 6.0.0-beta2, and the release before that is 5.98...

[bitchecker]

And here we are again, and again, and again!

I'm trying every version that is released and on everyone I get the same "warning" but all raised bugs are marked as "solved"!

As reported in doc this piece of code should work:

[...]
    filter {}
[...]

but when I try to apply, I still get the same warning:

  # aws_s3_bucket_lifecycle_configuration.s3-lifecycle[0] will be updated in-place
  ~ resource "aws_s3_bucket_lifecycle_configuration" "s3-lifecycle" {
        id                                     = "XXXXXXXXXXXX"
        # (3 unchanged attributes hidden)
      ~ rule {
            id     = "keep-only-two-versions"
            # (2 unchanged attributes hidden)
          + filter {
                # (1 unchanged attribute hidden)
            }
            # (1 unchanged block hidden)
        }
    }

Plan: 0 to add, 1 to change, 0 to destroy.

Warning: Invalid Attribute Combination

  30: resource "aws_s3_bucket_lifecycle_configuration" "s3-lifecycle" {
No attribute specified when one (and only one) of
[rule[0].filter,rule[0].prefix] is required

This will be an error in a future version of the provider

So we have the same warning but now "prefix" is reported ad level 1 and not inside a filter rule (as reported in documentation)

I can't see the utility to add this braking change, completely updating the way where a lifecycle configuration is set but align code is creating a lot of pain!

Just to give more context about pain:

• s3_bucket_lifecycle_configuration Warning: Invalid Attribute Combination #42515
• [Bug]: aws_s3_bucket_lifecycle_configuration with expiration filter but without and - MalformedXML error #42373
• Since v5.90.0, Invalid Attribute Combination on filter prefix for aws_s3_bucket_lifecycle_configuration #42274
• aws_s3_bucket_lifecycle_configuration warnings on empty filter {} block #42126
• How do I specify a lifecycle rule that applies to the whole bucket? the saga continues... #42112
• Warning: Invalid attribute Combination aws_s3_bucket_lifecycle_configuration.filter #42089
• [Bug]: Invalid Attribute Combination with aws_s3_bucket_lifecycle_configuration #41973
• [Bug]: aws_s3_bucket_lifecycle_configuration produces inconsistent provider error from v5.90 onwards when rule.filter.and.tags = {} #41821
• [Bug]: s3_bucket_lifecycle_configuration warning: filter is required? #41782
• [Bug]: S3 Lifecycle rule with no filter gives a warning #41725
• [Bug]: aws_s3_bucket_lifecycle_configuration using recommended empty filter issues warning #41710

[cdst]

With v5.99.1, utilising just an empty filter {} it doesn't throw warnings anymore.
example rule:

rule {
    id     = "object_expiration"
    status = "Enabled"

    expiration {
      days = 1
    }
    noncurrent_version_expiration {
      noncurrent_days = 1
    }

    filter {}
  }

This doesn't produce warnings.

Without the empty filter {} it still produces the same warning(s) as before.

Just in case, don't forget to run terraform init -upgrade and check with terrform version that you're actually using v5.99.1

However, the documentation could be a bit more clear about it because as of right now, the empty filter{} seems to be required no matter what.

[255535]

The fact that you can still copy this block out of the current documentation, use aws provider 5.99.1, and still get one of these warnings should be a testament to the fact that there is still an issue here, despite how many issues have been closed related to this.

[bitchecker]

Using v5.99.1 and using just filter {} in configuration I still get:

No attribute specified when one (and only one) of
`rule[0].filter, rule[0].prefix] is required

We move forward with versions, but the error is always at the exactly same point.

[johannes-gehrs]

And just to add, omitting the filter block is the maintainer-recommended way to write those rules

Advice given here:

With the v5.86.0 update, we are finding it necessary to revert to the original behavior, where the filter block should be omitted to apply no filtering. Unfortunately, this creates a breaking change for users who previously added empty filter blocks in response to the v4.2.0 requirement.