Re-visit allowing rate based rules inside a aws_wafv2_rule_group - Githubissues

hashicorp / terraform-provider-aws

The AWS Provider enables Terraform to manage AWS resources.

https://registry.terraform.io/providers/hashicorp/aws

Mozilla Public License 2.0

9.74k stars 9.09k forks source link

Re-visit allowing rate based rules inside a aws_wafv2_rule_group #26285

Closed tim-avalara closed 6 days ago

tim-avalara commented 2 years ago

I'm essentially re-opening https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws/issues/14326, since based on the comments on https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go/issues/3481#issuecomment-950257762 this is now possible.

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

Re-visit allowing rate based rules inside a aws_wafv2_rule_group

New or Affected Resource(s)

aws_wafv2_rule_group

Potential Terraform Configuration

resource "aws_wafv2_rule_group" "rate_rule_group" {
  name     = "IPRateLimitWAFRuleGroup"
  scope    = "CLOUDFRONT"
  capacity = 5

  rule {
    name     = "IPRateLimitWAFRule"
    priority = 4

    action {
      count {}
    }

    statement {
      rate_based_statement {
        limit              = 2000
        aggregate_key_type = "IP"
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

References

github-actions[bot] commented 1 month ago

Marking this issue as stale due to inactivity. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues. If this issue receives no comments in the next 30 days it will automatically be closed. Maintainers can also remove the stale label.

If this issue was automatically closed and you feel this issue should be reopened, we encourage creating a new issue linking back to this one for added context. Thank you!