revert: "chore(cdk): boostrap template uses deprecated AccessControl property" #27939
Conversation
colifran
had a problem deploying
to
test-pipeline
GitHub Actions
Failure
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
colifran
changed the title
aws-cdk-automation
dismissed
their stale review
✅ Updated pull request passes all PRLinter validations. Dismissing previous PRLinter review.
|
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 CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
|
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). |
|
@colifran why did my change get reverted? This AccessControl property is deprecated and is being flagged by cfn-lint |
See #27964 The bootstrap stack template has been widly reviewed and assessed. If you need to to comply with further requirements, like passing an unconfigured cfn-lint check, I recommend rolling your own custom version of it. Appreciate you are taking the time the review this from a security perspective though. |
|
Thanks for the reply. I had a look at #27964, and I'm really surprised by that. The original pull request was reviewed, and it was agreed that this legacy property doesn't do anything. Seems strange to have a deprecated property that is not actually deprecated. Thanks for the link to rolling our own template. We already do that, but I like to try and contribute improvement upstream, which was the case here. |
|
Found this. I don't have all the details, but looks like it might have be an issue with migrating existing buckets with certain account configurations. |
|
I guess backwards compatibility with imperfect existing setups is important, so I can understand how we got here, thanks. I guess we live with it, as there is no easy way to make a breaking change. |
Reverts #27764