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

Consider if we need to support turning off schema validation #782

Closed
eladb opened this issue Sep 26, 2018 · 1 comment
Closed

Consider if we need to support turning off schema validation #782

eladb opened this issue Sep 26, 2018 · 1 comment

Comments

@eladb
Copy link
Contributor

eladb commented Sep 26, 2018

In the discussion on #606, @ccurrie-amzn proposed that L1 resources will support turning off schema validation, in case the resource's CloudFormation schema is not up-to-date and there's a desire to use the strongly-typed property overrides nevertheless.

The current "escape hatch" for this use case (based on the design in #606) is to use addPropertyOverride which is weakly-typed.

We should collect user feedback to understand how much turning off validation is needed. It's non trivial to implement since the generated L1 resources have mappers that convert javascript-style properties to CloudFormation-style and those are dependent on the knowledge of the schema (if there's an array we map all elements, etc).

Furthermore, disabling schema validation is by definition limited when using the strong-typed overrides because the compiler/type-checker will perform much of the validation anyway (i.e. required/optional values, etc), and in some languages those are impossible to "turn off".

We suspect that addPropertyOverride, which bypasses validation, would be sufficient for such use cases, but we will track via this issue.

@eladb
Copy link
Contributor Author

eladb commented Dec 17, 2018

I am closing this for now. Let's reopen if this comes up again

@eladb eladb closed this as completed Dec 17, 2018
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

No branches or pull requests

1 participant