Terraform-provider-aws: Add new resource for s3 bucket lifecycle configuration

[cloudyparts]

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 "me too" comments, 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

Allow independent systems manage different parts of an s3 bucket configuration.
System A - manages lifecycle of bucket
System B - manages lifecycle of bucket lifecycle configuration
Both systems use terraform modules to isolate change scope.

New or Affected Resource(s)

• aws_s3_bucket (modifies)
• aws_s3_bucket_lifecycle_configuration (new)

Potential Terraform Configuration

resource "aws_s3_bucket" "b" {
  bucket = "my-tf-test-bucket"
  acl    = "private"

  tags {
    Name        = "My Bucket"
    Environment = "Dev"
  }
}

resource "aws_s3_bucket_lifecycle_configuration" {
  bucket = "${aws_s3_bucket.b.id}"

  rule  {
    id      = "log"
    enabled = true
    prefix  = "log/"

    tags {
      "rule"      = "log"
      "autoclean" = "true"
    }

    transition {
      days          = 15
      storage_class = "ONEZONE_IA"
    }

    transition {
      days          = 30
      storage_class = "STANDARD_IA"
    }

    transition {
      days          = 60
      storage_class = "GLACIER"
    }

    expiration {
      days = 90
    }
  }

  rule {
    id      = "tmp"
    prefix  = "tmp/"
    enabled = true

    expiration {
      date = "2016-01-12"
    }
  }
}

References

• hashicorp/terraform/3116 - possibly related implications
• #4418
• #1704

[zaphar]

Would this make more sense as an addition to the aws_s3_bucket_object resource? That is an already existing location that would make sense to attach lifecycle rules to and is already composable within the existing terraform s3 resources

[zaphar]

Has there been any movement on this? The lack of this feature is actually causing me to consider using a different tool for s3 provisioning.

[CYDX-nuna]

I would like to see this as well. It's making my life very complicated right now.

[realsby]

Yes I need this as well

[adamrothman]

Another vote for this feature.

[pspot2]

Another vote

[developerinlondon]

+1

[AchuthSankar]

+1

[shahnarendra4u]

+1, this is helpful, if we have a module for S3 and if we need to extend.

As of now as this does not exist, have to use custom resources for same and add lifecycle policy