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.

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

feat(elasticloadbalancingv2): add removeSuffix param for ExternalApplicationListener.addAction() #29746

Merged
merged 7 commits into from Apr 17, 2024

Conversation

ahammond
Copy link
Contributor

@ahammond ahammond commented Apr 5, 2024

Issue # (if applicable)

Closes #29496

Reason for this change

See #29513 (props based solution instead of feature-flag)

Description of changes

Adds a removeSuffix property to addAction method to address problems due to logicalId inconsistency.

Description of how you validated changes

UTs. Per IT document, integration tests are not necessary.

Checklist


By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license

@github-actions github-actions bot added bug This issue is a bug. effort/medium Medium work item – several days of effort p2 valued-contributor [Pilot] contributed between 6-12 PRs to the CDK labels Apr 5, 2024
@aws-cdk-automation aws-cdk-automation requested a review from a team April 5, 2024 20:59
Copy link
Collaborator

@aws-cdk-automation aws-cdk-automation left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The pull request linter has failed. See the aws-cdk-automation comment below for failure reasons. If you believe this pull request should receive an exemption, please comment and provide a justification.

A comment requesting an exemption should contain the text Exemption Request. Additionally, if clarification is needed add Clarification Request to a comment.

@ahammond
Copy link
Contributor Author

ahammond commented Apr 5, 2024

Exemption Request: this change doesn't touch any of the aspects which would require IT.

@aws-cdk-automation aws-cdk-automation added the pr-linter/exemption-requested The contributor has requested an exemption to the PR Linter feedback. label Apr 5, 2024
@ahammond ahammond force-pushed the logicalId-via-props branch 2 times, most recently from d2703ac to 8fc296a Compare April 12, 2024 23:15
Copy link
Contributor

@vinayak-kukreja vinayak-kukreja left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have a general question and please let me know if I am missing historical context here :)

  • Is addAction covering all that is done by addTargetGroups and adds more to it? If yes, do we want two functions doing somewhat similar things to exist? I believe it adds more confusion
  • If prior scenario is true, where addAction just supercedes addTargetGroups, then why can we just not deprecate addTargetGroups and remove Rule suffix from addAction and add all of this behind a feature flag?

@vinayak-kukreja
Copy link
Contributor

I have a general question and please let me know if I am missing historical context here :)

* Is `addAction` covering all that is done by `addTargetGroups` and adds more to it? If yes, do we want two functions doing somewhat similar things to exist? I believe it adds more confusion

* If prior scenario is true, where `addAction` just supercedes `addTargetGroups`, then why can we just not deprecate `addTargetGroups` and remove `Rule` suffix from `addAction` and add all of this behind a feature flag?

Ok, so I see addAction provides more control but addTargetGroups provides an abstracted version of it's functionality with some defaults.
In that case, IMO this configuration via props is becoming a bit confusing. I understand that we are trying to minimize using feature flags but adding it here probably will make a cleaner contract for the user. Thoughts?

@ahammond
Copy link
Contributor Author

I removed addTargetGroup() related changes from this PR. I really need the addAction() stuff resolved so we can move forward.

@ahammond ahammond changed the title feat(elasticloadbalancingv2): removeRuleSuffixFromLogicalId support feat(elasticloadbalancingv2): add removeSuffix param for ExternalApplicationListener.addAction() Apr 17, 2024
@ahammond
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ok, so I see addAction provides more control but addTargetGroups provides an abstracted version of it's functionality with some defaults. In that case, IMO this configuration via props is becoming a bit confusing. I understand that we are trying to minimize using feature flags but adding it here probably will make a cleaner contract for the user. Thoughts?

I've pulled out the stuff addressing the addTargetGroups from this PR to only address the problem which is blocking us. I think that the Right Way to address this going forward for the addTargetGroups() is a feature flag along the lines of what I wrote with #29513

But let's go one step at a time.

@TheRealAmazonKendra
Copy link
Contributor

@Mergifyio update

Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Apr 17, 2024

update

❌ Mergify doesn't have permission to update

For security reasons, Mergify can't update this pull request. Try updating locally.
GitHub response: refusing to allow a GitHub App to create or update workflow .github/workflows/request-cli-integ-test.yml without workflows permission

@TheRealAmazonKendra
Copy link
Contributor

Oh mergify...

@TheRealAmazonKendra TheRealAmazonKendra added pr-linter/exempt-integ-test The PR linter will not require integ test changes and removed pr-linter/exemption-requested The contributor has requested an exemption to the PR Linter feedback. labels Apr 17, 2024
@aws-cdk-automation aws-cdk-automation dismissed their stale review April 17, 2024 22:22

✅ Updated pull request passes all PRLinter validations. Dismissing previous PRLinter review.

Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Apr 17, 2024

Thank you for contributing! Your pull request will be updated from main and then merged automatically (do not update manually, and be sure to allow changes to be pushed to your fork).

@aws-cdk-automation
Copy link
Collaborator

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • CodeBuild project: AutoBuildv2Project1C6BFA3F-wQm2hXv2jqQv
  • Commit ID: 573af28
  • Result: SUCCEEDED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@mergify mergify bot merged commit f4af330 into aws:main Apr 17, 2024
9 checks passed
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Apr 17, 2024

Thank you for contributing! Your pull request will be updated from main and then merged automatically (do not update manually, and be sure to allow changes to be pushed to your fork).

@ahammond ahammond deleted the logicalId-via-props branch April 17, 2024 23:41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug This issue is a bug. effort/medium Medium work item – several days of effort p2 pr-linter/exempt-integ-test The PR linter will not require integ test changes valued-contributor [Pilot] contributed between 6-12 PRs to the CDK
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

ElasticLoadBalancerV2: migration to addAction() from addTargetGroups() fails because of logicalId change
4 participants