ENI: DescribeNetworkInterfaces attachment.instance-id filter

[Preskton]

Related issue: #3550

Description

Allows consumers to filter ENIs by the attachment.instance-id filter, if present. Today, attempting to filter by attachment.instance-id yields an Exception similar to:

moto.ec2.exceptions.FilterNotImplementedError: The filter 'attachment.instance-id' for DescribeNetworkInterfaces has not been implemented in Moto yet. Feel free to open an issue at https://github.com/spulec/moto/issues

TODO

• Open an issue
• Test this actually works
• Unit tests
• Lint, formatting, etc.
• Better description

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-0.1%) to 94.419% when pulling 4063467 on Preskton:eni_attachment_instance-id_filter into c9c30b8 on spulec:master.

[bblommers]

Thanks for the opening a PR @Preskton! Will convert it to a draft - let me know when you think it's ready for review.

[Preskton]

@bblommers since this is my first contribution, I have a couple of quick questions:

Would you mind taking a quick peek at the change and let me know if a) the change is reasonable/directionally correct, and b) if the unit test appears in line with how other items are tested?

Second, when I run black, there are a handful of errors outside of my current change's scope. Should I change them as part of this PR?

[bblommers]

This looks like the right approach @Preskton, both in terms of the actual change and the testing.

Black shouldn't touch anything else, really, as it is already formatted in master.
Which version are you using?

[Preskton]

Thanks for taking a peek, @bblommers. Turns out my py installs were absolutely wrecked. Cleaned them up and was able to get things going correctly.

I now have working tests - could you please provide feedback if this is an appropriate style? I was getting a little confused between if I should use client/resources or hit the backends directly.

Also, what guidance can you provide around clearing this warning? I'd like to knock it out before I merge.

tests/test_ec2/test_elastic_network_interfaces.py::test_elastic_network_interfaces_get_by_attachment_instance_id
  /code/Preskton/moto/moto/ec2/models.py:567: PendingDeprecationWarning: Could not find AMI with image-id:ami-d3adb33f, in the near future this will cause an error.
  Use ec2_backend.describe_images() to find suitable image for your test
    warnings.warn(

Thanks in advance!

[bblommers]

Creating the VPC can be done with the boto3-client as well.

@mock_ec2_deprecated makes it possible to mock boto, but were trying to phase out support for boto at some point. So new tests shouldn't have any @.._deprecated decorators.

[Preskton]

Do you have an example where we're using the new style and attaching an ENI? The only other ENI attach example I could find was using the deprecated style.

[bblommers]

It is be very similar using boto3. Haven't tested it out, but this should work:

eni1 = ec2_client.create_network_interface(SubnetId=..., Groups=[..])
ec2_client.attach_network_interface(DeviceIndex=1, InstanceId=..., NetworkInterfaceId=...)

[bblommers]

The warning pops up for quite a few tests - I think it's to do with the fact that this ImageId does not exist in our mocked world.
Don't worry this for now - we'll clean all those warnings up in one go (at some point..)

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #3549 (e00b278) into master (74666c1) will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3549      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   95.21%   95.22%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         535      535              
  Lines       59827    59844      +17     
==========================================
+ Hits        56963    56989      +26     
+ Misses       2864     2855       -9     

Flag	Coverage Δ
servertests	47.63% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
test_responses	32.39% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
unittests	95.13% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
moto/ec2/models.py	94.88% <100.00%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
moto/s3/models.py	94.98% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
moto/s3/responses.py	95.73% <0.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
moto/awslambda/models.py	93.01% <0.00%> (+0.11%)	⬆️
moto/s3/exceptions.py	93.92% <0.00%> (+2.36%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 74666c1...e00b278. Read the comment docs.

[bblommers]

Hope you don't mind me touching this PR @Preskton - I just fixed up the test to get it ready

[github-actions]

This is now part of moto >= 2.2.17.dev13