Terraform-provider-aws: aws_storagegateway_nfs_file_share does not populate the path attribute

[acdha]

Description

aws_storagegateway_nfs_file_share is documented as exposing the path attribute needed to mount the share:

• path - File share path used by the NFS client to identify the mount point.

Unfortunately, this was not actually implemented for resource creation or updates so it cannot be used in other places within Terraform. The read path does implemented it but that appears never to be called.

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

Terraform Version

Terraform v0.12.24
+ provider.aws v2.54.0

Affected Resource(s)

• aws_storagegateway_nfs_file_share

Expected Behaviour

The path attribute is available for other resources to use.

Actual Behaviour

This object has no argument, nested block, or exported attribute named "path".

[acdha]

@bflad I took a quick pass at a patch in #12530. Not enormously familiar with the Go toolchain so feel free to ignore it if that's easier.

[bflad]

The fix for this has been merged and will release with version 2.55.0 of the Terraform AWS Provider, likely later today. Thanks to @acdha for the implementation. 👍

[acdha]

Thanks for the rapid response – I like the level of effort you've put into that process!

[hashibot[bot]]

This has been released in version 2.55.0 of the Terraform AWS provider. Please see the Terraform documentation on provider versioning or reach out if you need any assistance upgrading.

For further feature requests or bug reports with this functionality, please create a new GitHub issue following the template for triage. Thanks!

[hashibot[bot]]

I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for _30 days_ ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues.

If you feel this issue should be reopened, we encourage creating a new issue linking back to this one for added context. Thanks!