Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Deploy setup #9

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Jan 8, 2018
Merged

Deploy setup #9

merged 10 commits into from
Jan 8, 2018

Conversation

rodrei
Copy link
Contributor

@rodrei rodrei commented Jan 5, 2018

No description provided.

@rodrei rodrei force-pushed the deploy branch 7 times, most recently from 0a07ae6 to caaae66 Compare January 5, 2018 04:46
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 79.241% when pulling caaae66 on deploy into 86c8f2b on development.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 79.241% when pulling 1e0b643 on deploy into 86c8f2b on development.

@rodrei rodrei force-pushed the deploy branch 2 times, most recently from 9d92596 to 8f39a7d Compare January 5, 2018 05:01
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 79.241% when pulling 8f39a7d on deploy into 86c8f2b on development.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 79.241% when pulling 42978f7 on deploy into 86c8f2b on development.

@rodrei rodrei force-pushed the deploy branch 12 times, most recently from ce652af to dcf9deb Compare January 7, 2018 16:25
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+1.3%) to 80.506% when pulling dcf9deb on deploy into 86c8f2b on development.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+1.3%) to 80.506% when pulling 7db1f0d on deploy into 86c8f2b on development.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+1.3%) to 80.506% when pulling 737f383 on deploy into 86c8f2b on development.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+1.3%) to 80.506% when pulling a0f697a on deploy into 86c8f2b on development.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+1.3%) to 80.506% when pulling 8a05633 on deploy into 86c8f2b on development.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+1.3%) to 80.506% when pulling 63fc44c on deploy into 86c8f2b on development.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+1.3%) to 80.506% when pulling f7b1bb0 on deploy into 86c8f2b on development.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+1.3%) to 80.506% when pulling 09c463d on deploy into 86c8f2b on development.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+1.3%) to 80.506% when pulling b9a743d on deploy into 86c8f2b on development.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+1.3%) to 80.549% when pulling 154548f on deploy into 86c8f2b on development.

@rodrei rodrei merged commit 154548f into development Jan 8, 2018
osahyoun
osahyoun reviewed Jan 12, 2018
View reviewed changes
deploy/parametersStoreClient.js
return secrets;
}

module.exports = getParametersByPath;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@rodrei let me know if I'm missing something (I suspect I am), but why aren't we referencing the SSM params directly? eg DDB_TABLE: ${ssm:/path/to/dynamodbTable}? https://serverless.com/framework/docs/providers/aws/guide/variables/#reference-variables-using-the-ssm-parameter-store

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@osahyoun osahyoun osahyoun left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
4 participants
@rodrei @coveralls @osahyoun @vincemtnz