-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.9k
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
feat(appmesh): change VirtualService provider to a union-like class #11978
Merged
Merged
Changes from 13 commits
Commits
Show all changes
20 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
bec6a09
feat(appmesh): changes VirtualService provider to a union-like class
b824a40
Apply suggestions from code review
dfezzie a717a44
enforce provider and VS in same mesh
c46bdb8
Merge branch 'master' into refactor/virtualServiceTarget
db7c5a2
Merge branch 'master' into refactor/virtualServiceTarget
9f99c47
Update to require a provider
be05561
Remove construct reference with qualifier
fb2dcda
Update appmesh ecs addon
cb566fc
Add back VirtualServiceProps and enforce Virtual Service mesh matches…
56fb779
Update integ test to use imported ACM cert
ae5052e
Remove ACM and ACM PCA from integ tests
adcf421
Merge branch 'master' into refactor/virtualServiceTarget
e43c332
Add back some integ code I removed for some reason
e678b9e
Addresses PR comments
14aef5e
Remove addVirtualService method from IMesh and IMesh attribute from V…
a37c6db
Deploy integ test
ec39db1
Minor cosmetic changes
f6afe7b
Update VirtualServiceProps docs
575ded5
Remove Mesh.addVirtualService() from ReadMe
skinny85 93fb617
Merge branch 'master' into refactor/virtualServiceTarget
mergify[bot] File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry, I don't understand these changes 😕.
The whole point of having
addVirtualService()
on Mesh is so that you don't have to provide the Mesh again. But with your changes, you can do something like:which just doesn't make sense to me.
I would revert all of these changes here, and this method should be:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess I was thinking of it more as a utility method, a quick way to add a new Virtual Service to your mesh, similar to how we add other resources like Virtual Nodes. If you cannot specify a provider, then essentially the method is useless as it will never produce a usable Virtual Service. If you created a VS as a placeholder and then went to add a provider you would have to remove it from the
addVirtualService
method into anew VirtualService(...)
call. How it is here, you could haveaddVirtualService('VirtualService')
in one synthesized stack which uses thenone
method as the default. Later, you could come along and add a different provider if you so choose.We can remove the method all together if you feel it does not fit well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right, but if you want to specify any property of the created Service, then it doesn't really save anything, right?
Doesn't save anything over
I think it doesn't make too much sense to over-emphasize the "add a VirtualService to the Mesh with only default properties" use case - it seems to just lead to an awkward API.
Notice that all other methods in the AppMesh module like
addVirtualNode()
,addVirtualGateway()
, etc. do not allow you to specify the main owning resource, like the Mesh, again.I don't think this inconsistency is worth it. I would either not allow passing
virtualServiceProvider
inaddVirtualService()
, or get rid of this method completely, whichever you prefer (if you go with the later, don't forget to add a BREAKING CHANGE note to the PR description).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For now, let's remove it. You're right that there is no real difference between the two method calls