feat(memory): Add passthrough for gmdp and gmcp operations for Memory

[jgordley]

Many of the LangChain/Crew/Llamaindex integrations require individual event management and listing of memory records in addition to just searching.

Features

• Added __get_attr__ method to the Memory Client to dynamically forward the request to either the data plane or the control plane depending on the operation
• Added a filter for methods that are supported on the memory client

Testing

Added unit tests to cover GetEvent, DeleteEvent, ListMemoryRecords, and a few other operations.

[kandoin]

Instead of adding these pass-through methods, a better way will be to directly have the attributes copied from the gmdp and gmcp_client into this client and definining the set of apis you want to import here. Something along these lines will give you all the methods.

You can then define a filter for the one you'd like to import in this client so that you aren't copying over methods for runtime/gateway etc. This will allow you to one shot import all the methods and not have this translation logic.

+    def __getattr__(self, name: str):
+        """Dynamically forward method calls to the appropriate boto3 client.
+
+        This method enables access to all boto3 client methods without explicitly
+        defining them. Methods are looked up in the following order:
+        1. gmdp_client (bedrock-agentcore) - for data plane operations
+        2. gmcp_client (bedrock-agentcore-control) - for control plane operations
+
+        Args:
+            name: The method name being accessed
+
+        Returns:
+            A callable method from the appropriate boto3 client
+
+        Raises:
+            AttributeError: If the method doesn't exist on either client
+
+        Example:
+            # Access any boto3 method directly
+            client = MemoryClient()
+
+            # These calls are forwarded to the appropriate boto3 client
+            response = client.list_memory_records(memoryId="mem-123", namespace="test")
+            metadata = client.get_memory_metadata(memoryId="mem-123")
+        """
+        # First try gmdp_client (data plane) as it's more commonly used
+        if hasattr(self.gmdp_client, name):
+            method = getattr(self.gmdp_client, name)
+            logger.debug("Forwarding method '%s' to gmdp_client", name)
+            return method
+
+        # Then try gmcp_client (control plane)
+        if hasattr(self.gmcp_client, name):
+            method = getattr(self.gmcp_client, name)
+            logger.debug("Forwarding method '%s' to gmcp_client", name)
+            return method
+
+        # Method not found on either client
+        raise AttributeError(
+            f"'{self.__class__.__name__}' object has no attribute '{name}'. "
+            f"Method not found on gmdp_client or gmcp_client. "
+            f"Available methods can be found in the boto3 documentation for "
+            f"'bedrock-agentcore' and 'bedrock-agentcore-control' services."
+        )

[jgordley]

This is a good point. Although we do lose some of the advantages of doing things like pagination under the hood for list event methods and extracting the response through returning return response['event'].

Although we can't just delete the old methods since users may have already implemented agents using those methods that now require a new .get('event') call to get the object that they previously would have needed, I agree with implementing this for all the new methods going forward that are not covered. I'll update the implementation.

[kandoin]

LGTM

[jona62]

LGTM!

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 50.00000% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
⚠️ Please upload report for BASE (main@00cc7ed). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/bedrock_agentcore/memory/client.py	50.00%	5 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main      #66   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage        ?   88.35%           
=======================================
  Files           ?       17           
  Lines           ?     1606           
  Branches        ?      242           
=======================================
  Hits            ?     1419           
  Misses          ?       93           
  Partials        ?       94           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	88.35% <50.00%> (?)

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.

[bergjaak]

confirmed that memory tests ran and passed locally. Therefore we are merging this