feat: sfn delete workflow (with prod token validation and messaging) #1379
Conversation
| @@ -60,6 +60,19 @@ def _set(self): | |||
| ], | |||
| ) | |||
|
|
|||
| def delete(self): | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
any specific reasons to use delete vs disable?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
main reason would be for cleanup purposes, so deleted flows do not leave any residual resources in AWS. A disabled rule would not incur any costs so impact is the same as with delete.
what would the case be for preferring disable over delete? My expectation for how step-functions delete command works would be that resources are removed, not simply disabled.
| "*%s*." % (name, prev_user) | ||
| ) | ||
| obj.echo( | ||
| "To deploy a new version of this flow, you need to use " |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this wouldn't work for deletes. also, it is likely that we may have more commands that wouldn't allow us to combine the token instructions into one. Maybe it is indeed okay to have some repetition.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
seems I simply forgot to make this line dynamic, the same output works in the argo-workflows delete/terminate feature already.
refactored this so token usage instructions can be passed to the validator as a function instead, keeping the validate_token() reusable for future commands as well (such as terminate etc. if we end up implementing those). Should be a somewhat cleaner approach now, let me know what you think :)
|
we can make this part of the next release train |
Would prefer if original author would incorporate these into their own branch so #1284 can be merged. Otherwise pick one of the following strategies: