-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Lake Formation LF-Tag Expression Limit Update #30095
Comments
Community NoteVoting for Prioritization
Volunteering to Work on This Issue
|
@justinretzolk Thanks for taking a look a this issue. Just to confirm that this is a different limit that is being hit than the related issues posted, and thus is not a duplicate. Just want to make sure that we are not closing out this issue. Thanks! |
Hey @hocanint-amzn, thanks for confirming those are different limits, and apologies for the misunderstanding on my part! |
@hocanint-amzn I'd like to take a look at this, and think I have reproduced what you are talking about very simply. Do you have an example config file to share? This is my very basic recreation of the issue.
|
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. |
Description
There is a discrepancy between the number items that are allowed in an LF-Tag expression when granting permissions that is limiting some use cases. The current code assumes a limit of 5, where as the service documentation does not specify a limit (See references). We would like to update the limit to match the documentation. If we feel uncomfortable not leaving a limit to the number of items in the expression, a safe limit would be 20.
Just to note, I am an employee in the Lake Formation Service team at AWS and this is a request on behalf some our customers.
Thank you!
References
Location where the limit exists:
terraform-provider-aws/internal/service/lakeformation/permissions_data_source.go
Line 138 in 5857c14
Lake Formation documentation:
Would you like to implement a fix?
No
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: