@aws-cdk_aws-apprunner-alpha: Invalid cpu or memory should be validated

[go-to-k]

Describe the feature

App Runner's CPU and Memory have a fixed input patterns in CloudFormation.
However, in CDK's L2 Construct (alpha), the input format is free (like Some vCPU). Tests are as follows (packages/@aws-cdk/aws-apprunner-alpha/test/service.test.ts).

test('custom cpu and memory units are allowed', () => {
  // GIVEN
  const app = new cdk.App();
  const stack = new cdk.Stack(app, 'demo-stack');
  // WHEN
  new apprunner.Service(stack, 'DemoService', {
    source: apprunner.Source.fromEcrPublic({
      imageIdentifier: 'public.ecr.aws/aws-containers/hello-app-runner:latest',
    }),
    cpu: apprunner.Cpu.of('Some vCPU'),
    memory: apprunner.Memory.of('Some GB'),
  });
  // THEN
  Template.fromStack(stack).hasResourceProperties('AWS::AppRunner::Service', {
    InstanceConfiguration: {
      Cpu: 'Some vCPU',
      Memory: 'Some GB',
    },
    NetworkConfiguration: {
      EgressConfiguration: {
        EgressType: 'DEFAULT',
      },
    },
  });
});

I would like to validate an invalid format before deploy.

Use Case

Incorrect values can be detected at the synth stage before deployment.

Proposed Solution

Create a private method for validation and call it at the constructor in the Service class.

Other Information

CFn output is the following message when deploy errors.

Properties validation failed for resource AppRunnerConstructAppRunnerService123456789 with message: #/InstanceConfiguration/Cpu: failed validation constraint for keyword [pattern]

Acknowledgements

• I may be able to implement this feature request
• This feature might incur a breaking change

CDK version used

v2.82.0

Environment details (OS name and version, etc.)

MacOS Ventura 13.2

[pahud]

I believe we should first consider using existing options in the enum-like class as below as they are all valid values. The of method is primarily for new values not defined in the class(and we should add it in). However, it's also good to have a validation for all values with the of() method but I wonder what is the value you are trying to use with of() instead of the pre-defined options in the class?

aws-cdk/packages/@aws-cdk/aws-apprunner-alpha/lib/service.ts

Lines 31 to 55 in 830e6d3

	export class Cpu {
	/**
	* 0.25 vCPU
	*/
	public static readonly QUARTER_VCPU = Cpu.of('0.25 vCPU');
	/**
	* 0.5 vCPU
	*/
	public static readonly HALF_VCPU = Cpu.of('0.5 vCPU');
	/**
	* 1 vCPU
	*/
	public static readonly ONE_VCPU = Cpu.of('1 vCPU')
	/**
	* 2 vCPU
	*/
	public static readonly TWO_VCPU = Cpu.of('2 vCPU')
	/**
	* 4 vCPU
	*/
	public static readonly FOUR_VCPU = Cpu.of('4 vCPU')

[go-to-k]

@pahud

I believe we should first consider using existing options in the enum-like class as below as they are all valid values.

and we should add it in

I agree.

I wonder what is the value you are trying to use with of() instead of the pre-defined options in the class?

Since only unit types (e.g. 1 vCPU) are defined in the enum-like class, I assume there is an of() method only for numeric types (e.g. 1024). In other words, if we define options for numeric type, there will be no more cases to use of().

If of() is removed, there is no need for validation. But in fact, I don't think we can remove the of() for backward compatibility. Therefore, it would be also good to validate for all values with the of() method.

I think what we can do now is one of the following

1. Add number type to enum options.
2. Validate all values with the of() method.
3. Do both.

[go-to-k]

I just thought that, as the significance of existence of of(), there may be a case to pass numerical values to of() without using enum options, when specs are written in numerical values in an external parameter file, etc., and then read them in.

[go-to-k]

In that case, the enum options for numeric types may not be necessary; it is also difficult to know how to use them differently from the enum options for unit types. Then, what to do is Validate all values with the of() method..

[pahud]

Agree. We would love to review your PR when it's ready.

[go-to-k]

Thank you, I'll try it that way. (Validate all values with the of() method.)

[go-to-k]

@pahud

Hi! I have submitted a PR, please review.

[keyboSlice]

Sorry to jump into an issue that may only be tangentially related, but I'm currently receiving validation errors when trying to set resource allocation using the enum-like classes provided by the package - is that expected?

The following service creation:

new apprunner.Service(this, getResourceName(`apprunner-service`, props.stage), {
      cpu: apprunner.Cpu.TWO_VCPU,
      memory: apprunner.Memory.SIX_GB,
      source: apprunner.Source.fromAsset({
        asset: dockerImage,
        imageConfiguration: {
          port: 3000,
          environmentVariables: {
            // some extra config here
          },
        },
      }),
    });

Results in the following error from CloudFormation -

#/InstanceConfiguration/Memory: failed validation constraint for keyword [pattern] #/InstanceConfiguration/Cpu: failed validation constraint for keyword [pattern]

Is that expected from the way that I'm providing the values do you know please?

[go-to-k]

@keyboSlice

I was able to deploy with the above specs (Cpu.TWO_VCPU and Memory.SIX_GB) using the enum-like classes.
I think your version may be out of date. My version is following,

"aws-cdk": "2.83.1",
"@aws-cdk/aws-apprunner-alpha": "^2.83.1-alpha.0",

[github-actions]

⚠️COMMENT VISIBILITY WARNING⚠️

Comments on closed issues are hard for our team to see.
If you need more assistance, please either tag a team member or open a new issue that references this one.
If you wish to keep having a conversation with other community members under this issue feel free to do so.