[Validators] Relax validator PlacementGroupCapacityReservationValidator by accepting PG-ODCR when PG is omitted/disabled in cluster config.

[gmarciani]

Description of changes

Relax validator PlacementGroupCapacityReservationValidator by accepting PG-ODCR when PG is omitted/disabled in cluster config.

This relaxation is safe because, when PG in cluster config is omitted/disabled, the ODCR decides the placement using its own PG. See doc: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/cr-cpg.html

This relaxation allows users to consume PG-ODCR having cross-account PG.

UX

Given a cluster config with a PG-ODCR and omitted/disabled PG, the CLI now succeeds with more helpful warning:

{
  "validationMessages": [
    {
      "level": "WARNING",
      "type": "EfaPlacementGroupValidator",
      "message": "You may see better performance using a placement group for the queue 'q2'. You can ignore this warning if the compute resources in the queue use a capacity reservation that provides its own placement group."
    },
    {
      "level": "WARNING",
      "type": "EfaPlacementGroupValidator",
      "message": "You may see better performance using a placement group for the queue 'q3'. You can ignore this warning if the compute resources in the queue use a capacity reservation that provides its own placement group."
    }
  ],
  "message": "Request would have succeeded, but DryRun flag is set."
}

while it used to fail with less helpful messages:

{
  "configurationValidationErrors": [
    {
      "level": "WARNING",
      "type": "EfaPlacementGroupValidator",
      "message": "You may see better performance using a placement group for the queue."
    },
    {
      "level": "WARNING",
      "type": "EfaPlacementGroupValidator",
      "message": "You may see better performance using a placement group for the queue."
    },
    {
      "level": "ERROR",
      "type": "PlacementGroupCapacityReservationValidator",
      "message": "There are no open or targeted ODCRs that match the instance_type 'c5n.9xlarge' in 'us-east-1b' and no placement group provided. Please either provide a placement group or add an ODCR that does not target a placement group and targets the instance type."
    },
    {
      "level": "ERROR",
      "type": "PlacementGroupCapacityReservationValidator",
      "message": "There are no open or targeted ODCRs that match the instance_type 'c5n.9xlarge' in 'us-east-1b' and no placement group provided. Please either provide a placement group or add an ODCR that does not target a placement group and targets the instance type."
    }
  ],
  "message": "Invalid cluster configuration."
}

Now:

    {
      "level": "WARNING",
      "type": "EfaPlacementGroupValidator",
      "message": "You may see better performance using a placement group for the queue 'q2'. You can ignore this warning if the compute resources in the queue use a capacity reservation that provides its own placement group."
    },
    {
      "level": "WARNING",
      "type": "EfaPlacementGroupValidator",
      "message": "You may see better performance using a placement group for the queue 'q3'. You can ignore this warning if the compute resources in the queue use a capacity reservation that provides its own placement group."
    },

Changes

Case	PG/Enabled	ODCR has PG?	PG is cross-account?	Current	Proposed	Notes
2	omitted	Yes	No	❌ ERROR	✅ Pass	Validation skipped
3	omitted	Yes	Yes	❌ ERROR	✅ Pass	Validation skipped
5	false	Yes	No	❌ ERROR	✅ Pass	Validation skipped
6	false	Yes	Yes	❌ ERROR	✅ Pass	Validation skipped

Tests

• Unit Tests
• Cluster creation consuming cross-account PG ODCR. Verified that capacity can launch.

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

[hanwen-cluster]

Why deleting this parameter?

[gmarciani]

it was injected only to provide the AZ in the error message:

There are no open or targeted ODCRs that match the instance_type 'c5n.9xlarge' in 'us-east-1b' and no placement group provided. Please either provide a placement group or add an ODCR that does not target a placement group and targets the instance type.

Not required anymore because we are removing that validation logic as part of the relaxation.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.06%. Comparing base (d4d705d) to head (7dae62a).
⚠️ Report is 11 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #7252   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    90.06%   90.06%           
========================================
  Files          182      182           
  Lines        16646    16620   -26     
========================================
- Hits         14992    14969   -23     
+ Misses        1654     1651    -3     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	90.06% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.