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

fix(cli): hide diffs of mangled unicode strings #24557

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

laverdet
Copy link
Contributor

@laverdet laverdet commented Mar 9, 2023

CloudFormation's GetStackTemplate irrecoverably mangles any character not in the 7-bit ASCII range. This causes noisy output from cdk diff when a template contains non-English languages or emoji. We can detect this case and consider these strings equal.

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

Many AWS services accept non-ASCII input, eg many "description" fields. CloudFormation will correctly dispatch these templates but when invoking GetStackTemplate the result is mangled. This causes annoying noise in the output of cdk diff:

Resources
[~] AWS::Lambda::Function Lambda/Resource
 └─ [~] Description
     ├─ [-] ?????
     └─ [+] 🤦🏻‍♂️

This change modifies the diff algorithm to consider the string equal if the lvalue is a mangled version of the rvalue.

Of course this runs the risk of hiding changesets which modify only a single non-ASCII character to another non-ASCII character, but these fields already tend to be informative in nature.

CloudFormation's `GetStackTemplate` irrecoverably mangles any character
not in the 7-bit ASCII range. This causes noisy output from `cdk diff`
when a template contains non-English languages or emoji. We can detect
this case and consider these strings equal.

*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 beginning-contributor [Pilot] contributed between 0-2 PRs to the CDK p2 labels Mar 9, 2023
@aws-cdk-automation aws-cdk-automation requested a review from a team March 9, 2023 21:33
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.

@laverdet
Copy link
Contributor Author

laverdet commented Mar 9, 2023

Exemption Request

@aws-cdk-automation aws-cdk-automation added the pr-linter/exemption-requested The contributor has requested an exemption to the PR Linter feedback. label Mar 9, 2023
@aws-cdk-automation
Copy link
Collaborator

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • CodeBuild project: AutoBuildv2Project1C6BFA3F-wQm2hXv2jqQv
  • Commit ID: 8f20a23
  • Result: SUCCEEDED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

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

@TheRealAmazonKendra
Copy link
Contributor

Reference

You must provide a justification for the exemption you're requesting. Please let us know why you'd like this exemption.

@TheRealAmazonKendra TheRealAmazonKendra removed the pr-linter/exemption-requested The contributor has requested an exemption to the PR Linter feedback. label Mar 29, 2023
@aws-cdk-automation
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR has been in the CHANGES REQUESTED state for 3 weeks, and looks abandoned. To keep this PR from being closed, please continue work on it. If not, it will automatically be closed in a week.

@laverdet
Copy link
Contributor Author

laverdet commented Apr 1, 2023

@TheRealAmazonKendra thank you for the response. This change only affects the CLI output and therefore an integration test isn't possible. I'm happy to spend more time documenting or working through other prerequisites but I do want to make sure that, conceptually, this change is one that the team will accept. I have also included more information about the benefits and tradeoffs of this change in the original PR message.

@aws-cdk-automation
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR has been deemed to be abandoned, and will be automatically closed. Please create a new PR for these changes if you think this decision has been made in error.

@aws-cdk-automation aws-cdk-automation added the closed-for-staleness This issue was automatically closed because it hadn't received any attention in a while. label Apr 8, 2023
@aws-cdk-automation
Copy link
Collaborator

The pull request linter fails with the following errors:

❌ Fixes must contain a change to an integration test file and the resulting snapshot.

PRs must pass status checks before we can provide a meaningful review.

If you would like to request an exemption from the status checks or clarification on feedback, please leave a comment on this PR containing Exemption Request and/or Clarification Request.

@laverdet
Copy link
Contributor Author

laverdet commented Apr 8, 2023

@TheRealAmazonKendra could we reopen this? It is not abandoned and I am waiting on feedback from the team.

@mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Apr 10, 2023

⚠️ The sha of the head commit of this PR conflicts with #25008. Mergify cannot evaluate rules on this PR. ⚠️

mergify bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 15, 2023
I am reopening this from #25525

and following up on my comments here:
#24557 (comment)
#24557 (comment)
#25008 (comment)
#25008 (comment)
#25008 (comment)
#25008 (comment)
#25008 (comment)
#25008 (comment)
#25525 (comment)
#25525 (comment)
🫠 #25525 (comment) 🫠

---

Fixes #25309
Fixes #22203
Fixes #20212
Fixes #13634
Fixes #10523
Fixes #10219
See also: aws-cloudformation/cloudformation-coverage-roadmap#1220
See also: aws-cloudformation/cloudformation-coverage-roadmap#814

---

👻 I have retitled this PR as a `chore` instead of a `fix` because @aws-cdk-automation keeps closing my PRs as abandoned even though they are clearly not abandoned.

> This PR has been deemed to be abandoned, and will be automatically closed. Please create a new PR for these changes if you think this decision has been made in error.

---

@otaviomacedo @rix0rrr @TheRealAmazonKendra - I'm happy to adjust the approach, add more tests, or do what else needs to be done. I'm not getting any feedback from the team so I'm not sure how to proceed. The diff noise with non-ASCII information in cdk diff makes it difficult to find meaningful changes to our stacks.

🗿🗞️📬 **Crucially, this change only affects the CLI output and therefore an integration test isn't possible.**

---

CloudFormation's `GetStackTemplate` irrecoverably mangles any character not in the 7-bit ASCII range. This causes noisy output from `cdk diff` when a template contains non-English languages or emoji. We can detect this case and consider these strings equal.

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

Many AWS services accept non-ASCII input, eg many "description" fields. CloudFormation will correctly dispatch these templates but when invoking `GetStackTemplate` the result is mangled. This causes annoying noise in the output of `cdk diff`:

```
Resources
[~] AWS::Lambda::Function Lambda/Resource
 └─ [~] Description
     ├─ [-] ?????
     └─ [+] 🤦🏻‍♂️
```

This change modifies the diff algorithm to consider the string equal if the lvalue is a mangled version of the rvalue.

Of course this runs the risk of hiding changesets which modify only a single non-ASCII character to another non-ASCII character, but these fields already tend to be informative in nature.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
beginning-contributor [Pilot] contributed between 0-2 PRs to the CDK closed-for-staleness This issue was automatically closed because it hadn't received any attention in a while. p2
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants