chore!: Rename resource aws_appsync_api_cache

[taufort]

Description

The aws_appsync_api_cache resource is named "example", which is not adequate and should be renamed to "this".
I also took a bit of time to update the example to make it easier to be used on other AWS accounts and also to make it more customizable.

Motivation and Context

Fixes #69

Breaking Changes

We need to bump Terraform version to be able to use Terraform moved block.

How Has This Been Tested?

• I have updated at least one of the examples/* to demonstrate and validate my change(s)
• I have tested and validated these changes using one or more of the provided examples/* projects

• I have executed pre-commit run -a on my pull request

[taufort]

I had to rename my PR's title from "refactor!" to "chore!" because the default authorized commit types in GitHub action amannn/action-semantic-pull-request only contain the following types:

• fix
• feat
• docs
• ci
• chore

The GitHub action allows one to override this default list (see https://github.com/amannn/action-semantic-pull-request/blob/main/action.yml#L11), I think it would be appropriate to add refactor in this list, WDYT?

[antonbabenko]

Please revert the changes in examples/complete.

[antonbabenko]

Users could use this output lambda_function_arn_static if they create Lambda functions using that module.

In this example, we don't need to have any assumption on AWS region or AWS account being used.

[taufort]

The lambda authorizer should be in the same account as the caller. If I use the hard-coded account ID 835367859851 to test the example on one of my AWS account, I get this error:

│ Error: updating AppSync GraphQL API (bntnbrrxdfcf3iqd5qpebe6ucu): operation error AppSync: UpdateGraphqlApi, https response error StatusCode: 400, RequestID: daa839ef-a9ba-47d7-b350-1b2adeb318e6, BadRequestException: Lambda Authorizer should be in the same account as caller
│ 
│   with module.appsync.aws_appsync_graphql_api.this[0],
│   on ../../main.tf line 9, in resource "aws_appsync_graphql_api" "this":
│    9: resource "aws_appsync_graphql_api" "this" {
│ 

In my humble opinion, it's a bad practice having this account ID hard coded everywhere in the code for contributions because any contributor that will wish to apply this example on her/his AWS account will have to update the code to make the example work.

[taufort]

Regarding the AWS region, I have the same opinion as the Account ID, it should be carried by the AWS provider you're using and not hard coded directly in the Terraform code. I have not changed the AWS region used previously, which was Ireland (eu-west-1).

[taufort]

@antonbabenko For information, I'm seeing a constant Terraform drift when I Terraform apply the example several times in a row without any change in the code:

Terraform will perform the following actions:

  # module.appsync.aws_appsync_graphql_api.this[0] will be updated in-place
  ~ resource "aws_appsync_graphql_api" "this" {
        id                   = "y4wlqbyrsbhp5eba7evicz52t4"
        name                 = "pro-dinosaur"
        tags                 = {
            "Name" = "pro-dinosaur"
        }
        # (11 unchanged attributes hidden)

      + lambda_authorizer_config {
          + authorizer_result_ttl_in_seconds = 300
          + authorizer_uri                   = "arn:aws:lambda:eu-west-1:835367859851:function:appsync_auth_1"
        }

        # (6 unchanged blocks hidden)
    }

Plan: 0 to add, 1 to change, 0 to destroy.

There must be an issue with this Lambda authorizer block.

[antonbabenko]

LGTM, it works in a similar way to the rest of our modules.

I think lambda_authorizer_config is drifting because the authorizer Lambda function is missing the required permissions, but it is out of the scope of this PR.

[antonbabenko]

This PR is included in version 3.0.0 🎉

[antonbabenko]

By accident (with ! in the PR/commit message)... now this became a major release... ok :)

[taufort]

By accident (with ! in the PR/commit message)... now this became a major release... ok :)

Is it really? I thought we said this would end up with a new major release. I may be wrong but I think we are not backward compatible with the change of Terraform version in versions.tf.

[antonbabenko]

@taufort You are right! The change of the Terraform version requires to be major release.