No matter how you like to participate in developer communities, Pulumi wants to meet you there. If you want to meet other Pulumi users to share use-cases and best practices, contribute code or documentation, see us at an event, or just tell a story about something cool you did with Pulumi, you are part of our community.

Pulumi Community

I'm getting an error when trying to make an Access Point for an EFS drive.
The error is
```aws-native:efs:AccessPoint (TestinfluxAP):
    error: operation CREATE failed with "InvalidRequest": Invalid request```
I'll post my code in the thread.

```const accessPoint = new awsnative.efs.AccessPoint(`${nam}influxAP`, {
        fileSystemId: efs.id,
        rootDirectory: {
                path: "influx",
                creationInfo: {
                        ownerGid: "0",
                        ownerUid: "0",
                        permissions: "700",
                },
        },
});```
efs.id is from
```const efs = new awsnative.efs.FileSystem(`${nam}-influx-pvc`, {
        encrypted: true,
        fileSystemTags: [
                {
                        key: "Name",
                        value: `${nam}-influx-pvc`,
                },
        ],
});```
${nam} is a config variable

So does anyone know why this isn't working?

tvmia

Unless there’s a specific reason to use the aws-native provider, I would be inclined to use the aws-classic provider (<https://www.pulumi.com/registry/packages/aws/api-docs/efs/>) since aws-native is in preview at this time and so you may be hitting a bug.
If there is a reason to stick with aws-native, try
creating the access point without the `creationInfo` - if it still errors out then try
```fileSystemId: efs.id.apply(id =&gt; id),```
Maybe the efs.id is not being lifted as expected.

I discovered my bug. The path: needs to start with a slash e.g. `/influx`  and not `influx` as I wrote above.

I am using both the classic and native providers. Maybe I should switch to all classic until native is 1.x but I feel like native is the future and thus have been using it where it seems to work well. I created the underlying EFS drive with native so making the AP that way seem to make sense.

I was mostly making sure you were aware of the classic provider just in case it helped. And in this case it looks like it was a typo and not a bug in the provider. So, it definitely makes sense to keep with the native provider.