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

Refactor CodeDeploy, ConfigRecorder, ConfigServiceRule resource types #516

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jul 26, 2023

Conversation

hongil0316
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Part of #494.

TODOs

Read the Gruntwork contribution guidelines.

  • Update the docs.
  • Run the relevant tests successfully, including pre-commit checks.
  • Ensure any 3rd party code adheres with our license policy or delete this line if its not applicable.
  • Include release notes. If this PR is backward incompatible, include a migration guide.
  • Attention Grunts - if this PR adds support for a new resource, ensure the nuke_sandbox and nuke_phxdevops jobs in .circleci/config.yml have been updated with appropriate exclusions (either directly in the job or via the .circleci/nuke_config.yml file) to prevent nuking IAM roles, groups, resources, etc that are important for the test accounts.

Release Notes (draft)

Added / Removed / Updated [X].

Updated [Refactor CodeDeploy, ConfigRecorder, ConfigServiceRule resource types]

Migration Guide

func getAllCodeDeployApplications(session *session.Session, excludeAfter time.Time, configObj config.Config) ([]string, error) {
svc := codedeploy.New(session)

func (c CodeDeployApplications) getAll(configObj config.Config) ([]*string, error) {

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same shorthand conversation here, perhaps cda? I feel like single letter abbreviations, while being golang cannon, make a some things more difficult:

  • Find & Replace
  • Regex searches
  • Function walking
  • Refactoring

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah definitely, In order to prevent back-and-forth approval again, I'll go through consistency related changes at once after all refactoring since it would be quite easy to make!

@hongil0316 hongil0316 merged commit c31d13b into master Jul 26, 2023
2 of 3 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants