[Bug]: aws_redshiftserverless_usage_limit stores breach_action as "disable" instead of "deactivate"

[davidhuser]

Terraform Core Version

v1.3.5

AWS Provider Version

v4.54.0

Affected Resource(s)

• aws_redshiftserverless_usage_limit

Expected Behavior

no updates

Actual Behavior

updates proposed in breach_action despite no changes made:

  # aws_redshiftserverless_usage_limit.client will be updated in-place
  ~ resource "aws_redshiftserverless_usage_limit" "client" {
      ~ breach_action = "disable" -> "deactivate"
        id            = "xxx"
        # (5 unchanged attributes hidden)
    }

Relevant Error/Panic Output Snippet

No response

Terraform Configuration Files

resource "aws_redshiftserverless_namespace" "this" {
  namespace_name = "mynamespace"
}

resource "aws_redshiftserverless_workgroup" "this" {
  namespace_name = aws_redshiftserverless_namespace.this.name
  workgroup_name = "myworkspace"
  base_capacity  = 32
}

resource "aws_redshiftserverless_usage_limit" "this" {
  resource_arn  = aws_redshiftserverless_workgroup.this.arn
  usage_type    = "serverless-compute"
  amount        = 60
  breach_action = "deactivate"
}

Steps to Reproduce

• apply a redshift serverless workgroup, namespace and usage limit
• plan and view output of plan

Debug Output

No response

Panic Output

No response

Important Factoids

No response

References

API reference: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift-serverless/latest/APIReference/API_UpdateUsageLimit.html

Valid Values: log | emit-metric | deactivate

Would you like to implement a fix?

None

[github-actions[bot]]

Community Note

Voting for Prioritization

• Please vote on this issue by adding a 👍 reaction to the original post to help the community and maintainers prioritize this request.
• Please see our prioritization guide for information on how we prioritize.
• 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.

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.

[DrFaust92]

Hi davidhuser this seems to originage from upstream AWS API as there is validation in place for this field