This logic returns the following error in our tests

        	            	Error: Inconsistent conditional result types
        	            	
        	            	  on ../../deprecated.tf line 10, in locals:
        	            	  10:   deployment_principals = var.deployment_principal_arns == null ? var.deployment_principals : { for arn, path_prefix in var.deployment_principal_arns : arn => { "arn" : arn, "path_prefix" : path_prefix } }

Could you format this to make the logic easier to read? Id also put the second portion of the ternary in a separate local.

Id also try to run the examples/complete module locally to make sure it works as expected. It will be faster iteration.

sorry for the delay here.. @nitrocode I've pushed a patch that fixes the readability. I'll report back on running the examples/complete module.

..hmm we don't use route 53, so I don't have an R53 zones setup. Is there another way to run some tests?

@abeluck I re-ran the Terratest here and the result is the same as above

│ Error: Inconsistent conditional result types
│ 
│   on ../../deprecated.tf line 17, in locals:
│   17:   deployment_principals = var.deployment_principal_arns == null ? var.deployment_principals : local.deployment_principals_from_deprecated_deployment_principal_arns
│     ├────────────────
│     │ local.deployment_principals_from_deprecated_deployment_principal_arns is object with 2 attributes
│     │ var.deployment_principal_arns is map of list of string with 2 elements
│     │ var.deployment_principals is empty map of object
│ 
│ The true and false result expressions must have consistent types. The
│ 'true' value is map of object, but the 'false' value is object.
╵}

I believe the issues is because the example expects the map value to be a list of strings, whereas your variable is expecting a single prefix per arn.

Thanks @joe-niland It was an easy fix in the var definition.

I pared down the complete test to be able to run it locally. It's working now both with the deprecated var.deployment_principal_arns and new var.deployment_principals.

I've updated the documentation in a few more places, and rebased the branch so the PR can be easily squash merged.

We could also change the complete example to use the new var.deployment_principals, what do you think?

Thanks @abeluck, that sounds good.
Yes, I think it makes sense to update the example.

@abeluck sorry for the delay - all looks good, but will you be updating the examples?

@abeluck see comment above re: examples :)