Add price_performance_target param onto aws provider

[cr-klarna]

Description

Change introduces a way to configure price_performance_target values on a serverless workgroup. Some important notes on differences to the AWS API:

• uses an enables nested attribute to improve terraform semantics vs the status field in the API (set to string "ENABLED" or "DISABLED" which is clunky when declaring config)
• maps the allowed values for level to strings to again improve semantics vs using ints that have only discrete values allowed arbitrarily by the API (see serverless api comment https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/blob/main/service/redshiftserverless/types/types.go#L232).
• adds validation to prevent base_capacity being set if price_performance_target.enabled is true.

example:

resource "aws_redshiftserverless_workgroup" "example" {
  namespace_name = "concurrency-scaling"
  workgroup_name = "concurrency-scaling"
  price_performance_target = {
    enabled = true,
    level = "BALANCED"
  }
}

Relations

Closes #40915

References

• https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/blob/main/service/redshiftserverless/types/types.go#L232

Output from Acceptance Testing

% make testacc TESTS=TestAccRedshiftServerlessWorkgroup_pricePerformanceTarget PKG=redshiftserverless

...

[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.

[cr-klarna]

I would specifically like feedback on if we just feel it's better to ignore the nested attributes and just assume enabled if specifying the level. I was back and forth on this

[github-actions]

Welcome @cr-klarna 👋

It looks like this is your first Pull Request submission to the Terraform AWS Provider! If you haven’t already done so please make sure you have checked out our CONTRIBUTOR guide and FAQ to make sure your contribution is adhering to best practice and has all the necessary elements in place for a successful approval.

Also take a look at our FAQ which details how we prioritize Pull Requests for inclusion.

Thanks again, and welcome to the community! 😃