security_group_rule: explictly state that a single resource can manage many security group rules.

[aidanmelen]

Explicitly document that a single security group rule resource may result in the EC2 API creating one or many security group rule(s) depending on whether multiple source(s)/destination(s) are provided or whether a source/destination has a list containing multiple elements.

Description

The security group rule resource explicit states that it "Represents a single ingress or egress group rule" which is false.

For example:

resource "aws_security_group_rule" "example" {
  description              = "A single rule resource will create a total of three ingress rules in AWS"
  type                     = "ingress"
  security_group_id        = "sg-123456"
  from_port                = 443
  to_port                  = 443
  protocol                 = "tcp"
  cidr_blocks              = ["10.0.1.0/24", "10.0.2.0/24"] # this will create two ingress rules
  source_security_group_id = "sg-123456789"                 # and this will another
}

Relations

#25173

[github-actions]

Community Note

Voting for Prioritization

• Please vote on this pull request by adding a 👍 reaction to the original post to help the community and maintainers prioritize this pull 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.

For Submitters

• Review the contribution guide relating to the type of change you are making to ensure all of the necessary steps have been taken.
• For new resources and data sources, use skaff to generate scaffolding with comments detailing common expectations.
• Whether or not the branch has been rebased will not impact prioritization, but doing so is always a welcome surprise.

[ewbankkit]

Relates #20104.

[aidanmelen]

I think the (s) in source(s)/destination(s) triggered the spelling check to fail. I also could have spelled something wrong. The action did not specify the specific failure.

[aidanmelen]

@ewbankkit I simplified my change. the linter should pass now.

[aidanmelen]

@ewbankkit do you have any idea why this GA check is failing? This seems like a really small change and should not be failing

[breathingdust]

LGTM 🚀 Thanks @aidanmelen!

[github-actions]

This functionality has been released in v4.35.0 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. Thank you!

[github-actions]

I'm going to lock this pull request because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues.
If you have found a problem that seems related to this change, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.