Argument Reference - Filter - Data Source: aws_directory_service_directory

[marciogmorales]

Community Note

• Please vote on this issue by adding a 👍 reaction to the original issue to help the community and maintainers prioritize this request
• Please do not leave "+1" or other comments that do not add relevant new information or questions, they generate extra noise for issue followers and do not help prioritize the request
• If you are interested in working on this issue or have submitted a pull request, please leave a comment

Description

When working with multiple AWS Directory Services, using Dependency Inversion becomes challenging because Filter doesn't allow to search by tag as argument references. It requires the use of a Module composition approach.

New or Affected Resource(s)

• aws_db_instance
• aws_fsx_windows_file_system

Potential Terraform Configuration

data "aws_directory_service_directory" "managed_ad" {
  filter {
    name   = "tag:Name"
    values = ["MyManagedAD01"]
  }
}

References

• 0000

[n2N8Z]

The Potential Terraform Configuration should be without directory_id, because you don't need the filters if you already have the id.

data "aws_directory_service_directory" "managed_ad" {
  filter {
    name   = "tag:Name"
    values = ["MyManagedAD01"]
  }
}

But describe-directories has no filter parameter, and does not return tags, so terraform can't really provide the desired functionality.

[sueastside]

Current workaround seems a bit convoluted, as the datasource only takes the id, not the arn;

data "aws_resourcegroupstaggingapi_resources" "example" {
  resource_type_filters = ["fsx:file-system"]
  tag_filter {
    key    = "Name"
    values = ["fsx-example"]
  }
}

data "aws_fsx_windows_file_system" "example" {
  id = split("/", data.aws_resourcegroupstaggingapi_resources.example.resource_tag_mapping_list[0].resource_arn)[1]
}

output "fsx" {
  value = data.aws_fsx_windows_file_system.example
}

[marciogmorales]

@justinretzolk Do you have any update on this?

[justinretzolk]

Hey @marciogmorales 👋 Thanks for checking in on this one! I can't speak to when this will be prioritized just yet, so don't have much of an update, unfortunately. We base our prioritization on the count of :+1: reactions and a few other considerations (more information: prioritization guide).