fix: mark aws_route53profiles_resource_association resource_properties as Computed

[aristosvo]

Description

Mark aws_route53profiles_resource_association resource_properties attribute as Computed to enable aws_vpc_endpoint association.

Relations

Closes #42558
Closes #42489

References

Output from Acceptance Testing

% make testacc TESTS=TestAccRoute53ProfilesResourceAssociation_vpcEndpoint PKG=route53profiles 
make: Verifying source code with gofmt...
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go1.23.8 test ./internal/service/route53profiles/... -v -count 1 -parallel 20 -run='TestAccRoute53ProfilesResourceAssociation_vpcEndpoint'  -timeout 360m -vet=off
2025/05/10 11:38:58 Initializing Terraform AWS Provider...
=== RUN   TestAccRoute53ProfilesResourceAssociation_vpcEndpoint
=== PAUSE TestAccRoute53ProfilesResourceAssociation_vpcEndpoint
=== CONT  TestAccRoute53ProfilesResourceAssociation_vpcEndpoint
--- PASS: TestAccRoute53ProfilesResourceAssociation_vpcEndpoint (1305.10s)
PASS
ok      github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws/internal/service/route53profiles    1308.362s

[github-actions]

Community Guidelines

This comment is added to every new Pull Request to provide quick reference to how the Terraform AWS Provider is maintained. Please review the information below, and thank you for contributing to the community that keeps the provider thriving! 🚀

Voting for Prioritization

• Please vote on this Pull Request by adding a 👍 reaction to the original post to help the community and maintainers prioritize it.
• Please see our prioritization guide for additional information on how the maintainers handle prioritization.
• Please do not leave +1 or other comments that do not add relevant new information or questions; they generate extra noise for others following the Pull Request and do not help prioritize the request.

Pull Request Authors

• Review the contribution guide relating to the type of change you are making to ensure all of the necessary steps have been taken.
• Whether or not the branch has been rebased will not impact prioritization, but doing so is always a welcome surprise.

[erezo9]

Hi
we are using this feature in our enivornments
what are the chances this could be fixed in the upcoming provider?

[aristosvo]

As Thursday is usually release day, I'd say very slim. It's probably also good to know the maintainers are trying to get 6.0 out of the door, which reduces chances of this being picked up soon.

But @justinretzolk might know more.

[erezo9]

@aristosvo
Do you know of a way to tell terraform to ignore these changes until they upgrade the provider?
Using lifecycle ignore changes doesn’t work

[aristosvo]

@erezo9 You could try to predict the values and see if that works as input. Other option is to compile the provider based on my branch.

Other than that I cannot think of anything.

[erezo9]

@aristosvo i have compiled it based on your branch for now

seems to work fine
thanks!

[aristosvo]

@aristosvo i have compiled it based on your branch for now

seems to work fine thanks!

If you want me to rebase/merge main to make sure the other parts of the provider are on par with main, please let me know! Happy to do that once in a while until it is merged

[erezo9]

@aristosvo all good
the module/ folder is only specific for the dns modules of route53 and route53profiles

But thanks for the assist!