feat(core): RemovalPolicies.of(scope)

[watany-dev]

Issue # (if applicable)

N/A - New feature proposal

Reason for this change

Currently, applying removal policies to multiple resources requires setting them individually or using Tags as a workaround. This change introduces a new RemovalPolicies module that provides a more intuitive and type-safe way to manage removal policies across multiple resources, similar to the existing Tags API.

Description of changes

Added a new RemovalPolicies module that provides:

• A similar interface to Tags.of() for managing removal policies

• Type-safe resource type specifications using CloudFormation resource type strings

• Ability to include or exclude specific resource types

• Convenient methods for common removal policies (destroy, retain, snapshot, retainOnUpdateOrDelete)

Example usage:

// Using CloudFormation resource type strings
RemovalPolicies.of(scope).retain({
  applyToResourceTypes: ['AWS::S3::Bucket', 'AWS::DynamoDB::Table']
});

const bucket = new s3.Bucket(scope, 'bucket')

// Using CDK resource classes (type-safe)
RemovalPolicies.of(scope).retain({
  applyToResourceTypes: [
       bucket.cfnResourceType,
       CfnTable.CFN_RESOURCE_TYPE_NAME,
  ]
});

// Mixed usage
RemovalPolicies.of(scope).retain({
  applyToResourceTypes: [bucket.cfnResourceType, 'AWS::DynamoDB::Table']
});

Description of how you validated changes

TBD

Checklist

[x] My code adheres to the CONTRIBUTING GUIDE and DESIGN GUIDELINES

---

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

[aws-cdk-automation]

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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 98.27586% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 82.37%. Comparing base (3ed7c4d) to head (1743e0a).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #32283      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   82.24%   82.37%   +0.13%     
==========================================
  Files         119      120       +1     
  Lines        6875     6933      +58     
  Branches     1161     1169       +8     
==========================================
+ Hits         5654     5711      +57     
- Misses       1118     1119       +1     
  Partials      103      103              

Flag	Coverage Δ
suite.unit	82.37% <98.27%> (+0.13%)	⬆️

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

Components	Coverage Δ
packages/aws-cdk	∅ <ø> (∅)
packages/aws-cdk-lib/core	82.37% <98.27%> (+0.13%)	⬆️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[aws-cdk-automation]

This PR has been in the CHANGES REQUESTED state for 3 weeks, and looks abandoned. To keep this PR from being closed, please continue work on it. If not, it will automatically be closed in a week.

✅ Updated pull request passes all PRLinter validations. Dismissing previous PRLinter review.

[go-to-k]

I've only seen halfway through, but I'll leave you with my comments so far.

[kaizencc]

Hi @watany-dev thanks for continuing to iterate with me on this PR. sorry for the additional comments -- i want to make sure that this one is right before we send it out. my main thing is that removalPolicyAspect shouldn't be a property anymore, now that you've added MissingRemovalPolicies class. Please let me know if you have any questions, i'll continue to monitor this PR. Thanks!

[kaizencc]

i would expect this property to be deleted, now that the classes we expose determine this behavior. what would it mean to have a MissingRemovalPolicy.apply(..., { respectPreviousPolicy: false })?

[watany-dev]

Sorry for my carelessness. I hope you are cured.

[kaizencc]

i was hoping respectPreviousPolicy was no longer a property set by the user. RemovalPolicyAspect should always apply the policy (i.e. it's as if respectPreviousPolicy was false). MissingRemovalPolicyAspect behaves as if respectPreviousPolicy was true.

that way, the user doesn't have to set respectPreviousPolicy and rahter just decides either to use RemovalPolicy or MissingRemovalPolicy.

[watany-dev]

Oh sorry! Unnecessary properties have disappeared! I may need to consult on this, but if priority is used in the removalPolicies to be overwritten, I'll issue a warning, right?

Pull request has been modified.

[kaizencc]

okay, approving @watany-dev! hopefully i didn't break the build with my changes but if i did i'll circle back and fix

[aws-cdk-automation]

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

• CodeBuild project: AutoBuildv2Project1C6BFA3F-wQm2hXv2jqQv
• Commit ID: c2f6190
• Result: SUCCEEDED
• Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

[mergify]

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).

[github-actions]

Comments on closed issues and PRs are hard for our team to see.
If you need help, please open a new issue that references this one.