Stack creation fails on custom resources - Invalid PhysicalResourceId

[ngortheone]

I am deploying the template with the following parameters

• Archive to S3 - No
• Send Anonymous Usage Data - No

I use us-east-1 and us-east-2 regions. And I have 2 S3 buckets with CRR enabled (and working) When I deploy the stack, it fails on creation of Custom resources

Status: CREATE_FAILED
Type: Custom::TrailAlarm
LogicalID: CustomTrailAlarm
Status Reason: Invalid PhysicalResourceId

If I take out CustomTrailAlarm out of the template it fails on another Custom resource - CustomDeployment, with the same error.

I tried to deploy the stack in different accounts, with Admin privileges.

[oyenamit]

I am facing exact same issue.

In the 'Create Stack' wizard: For parameter 'Archive to S3', I am selecting 'No'. For parameter 'Send Anonymous Usage Data', I am selecting 'No'.

I am in us-east-1 region and have 2 S3 buckets in different regions with CRR enabled.

When I deploy the stack, it ends in an error and causes a rollback. In CloudFormation console, just before rollback, I see the following error:

Status: CREATE_FAILED Type: Custom::TrailAlarm LogicalID: CustomTrailAlarm Status Reason: Invalid PhysicalResourceId

In CloudTrail logs, I cannot find any error related to TrailAlarm.

[groverlalit]

@ngortheone @oyenamit Thanks for reporting this issue. It seems the custom resource is failing but the error message in the CFN events does not point us the exact issue. Can you please open a support ticket (https://console.aws.amazon.com/support/cases#/create). Please add a link for this repository inside the case description and share the CloudWatch logs for the custom resource to identify the exact issue. The ticket will be redirected to our group and help us investigate and share the results/resolution with you. Thanks.

[oyenamit]

@groverlalit I have a basic support plan due to which I am unable to create a Technical Support case. Is there any other way to get this issue resolved? Thanks.

[ericquinones]

Hello- Apologies for the delay. This issue was resolved with version 2.0.0 of the solution. Please let us know if you experience this again after launching version 2.0.1 or later. Thanks