resource/aws_route53_health_check: Add disable_healthcheck argument

[michael-allenNVM]

[original]### Community Note

• Please vote on this pull request by adding a 👍 reaction to the original pull request comment to help the community and maintainers prioritize this request
• Please do not leave "+1" comments, they generate extra noise for pull request followers and do not help prioritize the request

The Route53 API supports the "Disabled" argument, which will stop health checks from being performed on the endpoint and set the Health Check to be considered Healthy. Combined with invert_healthcheck, this makes it possible to effectively stop routing traffic to a specific record.

Changes proposed in this pull request:

• docs/resource/aws_route53_health_check: Add information on disable_healthcheck argument
• resource/aws_route53_health_check: Add support for Disabled argument
• tests/resource/aws_route53_health_check: Enhanced existing tests for disable_healthcheck argument

Release note for CHANGELOG:

ENHANCEMENT
resource/aws_route53_health_check: Add disable_healthcheck argument

Output from acceptance testing:

# make testacc TEST=./aws TESTARGS='-run=TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck'                                     ==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./aws -v -count 1 -parallel 20 -run=TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck -timeout 120m
go: finding github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-tls v2.1.1+incompatible
go: finding github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-tls v2.1.1+incompatible
=== RUN   TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_basic
=== PAUSE TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_basic
=== RUN   TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_withSearchString
=== PAUSE TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_withSearchString
=== RUN   TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_withChildHealthChecks
=== PAUSE TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_withChildHealthChecks
=== RUN   TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_withHealthCheckRegions
=== PAUSE TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_withHealthCheckRegions
=== RUN   TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_IpConfig
=== PAUSE TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_IpConfig
=== RUN   TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_CloudWatchAlarmCheck
=== PAUSE TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_CloudWatchAlarmCheck
=== RUN   TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_withSNI
=== PAUSE TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_withSNI
=== CONT  TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_basic
=== CONT  TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_IpConfig
=== CONT  TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_withSNI
=== CONT  TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_CloudWatchAlarmCheck
=== CONT  TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_withChildHealthChecks
=== CONT  TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_withHealthCheckRegions
=== CONT  TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_withSearchString
--- PASS: TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_IpConfig (26.08s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_withHealthCheckRegions (26.17s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_withChildHealthChecks (28.85s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_CloudWatchAlarmCheck (32.30s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_basic (41.08s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_withSearchString (41.48s)
--- PASS: TestAccAWSRoute53HealthCheck_withSNI (55.70s)
PASS
ok      github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-aws/aws       55.751s


...

Would close these issues:
#10117
#8937

[DuplicatePR-bot]

Hi there! This pull request looks like it might be a duplicate of #8939, since it has the same issue number , a similar title, and similar commits.

To improve our bot, you can help us out by clicking one of the options below:
- This pull request is a duplicate, so this comment was useful. check
- This pull request is not a duplicate, but this comment was useful nevertheless. check
- This pull request is not a duplicate, so this comment was not useful. check
- I do not need this service, so this comment was not useful. check

This bot is currently in its alpha stage, and we are only sending at most one comment per repository. If you are interested in using our bot in the future, please subscribe. If you would like to learn more, see our web page.

[bflad]

Hi @michael-allenNVM 👋 Thank you for submitting this pull request. This appears to be a very similar implementation to an existing pull request (#8939). In these situations, the maintainers prefer to work in chronological order to ensure fair credit is given unless the original author is unresponsive. For now, I'm going to close this pull request in preference of the earlier one, but we can revisit/reopen this one if necessary. Thanks again for the contribution.

[michael-allenNVM]

Hi @bflad The PR that this PR was closed in favour of has been closed due to inactivity.

Are you still interested in looking at this change, if so can this PR be re-opened and I will progress it?

[ghost]

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.

If you feel this issue should be reopened, we encourage creating a new issue linking back to this one for added context. Thanks!