Marking passwords field of aws_elasticache_user as sensitive

[sergenyalcin]

Description of your changes

Depends on crossplane/terrajet#100

This PR depends on the following one -> crossplane/terrajet#197
Until merge the dependent PR, a temporary replace command was added to go.mod:

https://github.com/sergenyalcin/provider-jet-aws/blob/ae8fb3a002c0e24f868d0d608fa365ef42d6da7e/go.mod#L26

This PR marks the passwords field of aws_elasticache_user as sensitive. Now, this field is not sensitive and the passwords are put to the spec directly. Because for []string and []*string types, there is not support as sensitive fields. The dependent PR will provide this support. After merging the dependent PR in terrajet, this PR can be merged.

I have:

• Read and followed Crossplane's contribution process.
• Run make reviewable test to ensure this PR is ready for review.

How has this code been tested

• Generation of the resource was successfully completed. The PasswordsSecretRef field was generated as
  *[]v1.SecretKeySelector

• I created the following manifest:

apiVersion: elasticache.aws.jet.crossplane.io/v1alpha1
kind: User
metadata:
  name: sample-user
spec:
  forProvider:
    userName: "testUserName"
    accessString: "on ~app::* -@all +@read +@hash +@bitmap +@geo -setbit -bitfield -hset -hsetnx -hmset -hincrby -hincrbyfloat -hdel -bitop -geoadd -georadius -georadiusbymember"
    engine: "REDIS"
    region: us-west-1
    passwordsSecretRef:
      - name: test-slice-1
        namespace: crossplane-system
        key: pwd
      - name: test-slice-2
        namespace: crossplane-system
        key: pwd
  writeConnectionSecretToRef:
    name: test-conn
    namespace: default

• The external resource was successfully created and the connection secret had the correct values.

[muvaf]

I think the blocking issue is fixed now, so we can merge this once the go.mod is updated. Thanks!

[muvaf]

@sergenyalcin Is there anything blocking this? It seems fine to merge after resolving the conflicts.

[sergenyalcin]

@sergenyalcin Is there anything blocking this? It seems fine to merge after resolving the conflicts.

Conflicts were resolved!