aws_lb_listener_certificate throws error parsing ELBv2 Listener Certificate ID if iam cert name contains "_"

[greedy52]

Terraform Version

Terraform v0.13.5

Affected Resource(s)

• aws_lb_listener_certificate throws

Terraform Configuration Files

resource aws_lb_listener_certificate alb {                                                                          
  listener_arn    = aws_lb_listener.alb.arn                                
  certificate_arn = var.extra_lb_cert_arn                           
} 

Note that the extra_lb_cert_arn is an iam cert arn something like arn:aws:iam::221108671772:server-certificate/<example.domain.com>_Sep2019

Terraform Plan Error Output

Error: error parsing ELBv2 Listener Certificate ID (arn:aws:elasticloadbalancing:us-east-1:221108671772:listener/app///_arn:aws:iam::221108671772:server-certificate/<example.domain.com>_Sep2019): unexpected format for ID ("arn:aws:elasticloadbalancing:us-east-1:221108671772:listener/app///_arn:aws:iam::221108671772:server-certificate/<example.domain.com>_Sep2019"), expected listener-arn_certificate-arn

Expected Behavior

Terraform plan Success

Actual Behavior

• With aws release 3.27.0 terraform plan succeed
• With aws release 3.28.0 terraform plan throws about error

References

I believe the breaking change is introduced in this pull request: #16474

The ListenerCertificateParseID function expects the id has two parts split by _. But in the case where _ exists in the name of the cert, it fails this parse check.

[bflad]

Fix submitted: #17645

[bflad]

The fix for this has been merged and will release with version 3.29.0 of the Terraform AWS Provider, tomorrow. 👍

[ghost]

This has been released in version 3.29.0 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!

[ghost]

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!