-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4k
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
fix(elasticloadbalancerV2): logicalId supports switch from addTargetGroups (under feature flag) #29513
Conversation
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.
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.
d533340
to
1bddd9f
Compare
1bddd9f
to
1387f78
Compare
|
fe2d9cc
to
143a485
Compare
143a485
to
90c518e
Compare
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.
Thank you for your contribution @ahammond! The changes look good to me overall but I've just let some comments regarding theENABLE_ALBV2_EXTERNALAPPLICATIONLISTENER_ADDTARGETGROUP_CONSISTENT_LOGICALID
feature flag as well as some wording changes.
We apologize for the delay in reviewing your PR. We'll make sure this gets prioritized and hopefully merged as part of the 2.136.0 release this week. We appreciate your patience.
@@ -309,3 +309,29 @@ _cdk.json_ | |||
} | |||
} | |||
``` | |||
|
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.
Can you also add the feature flag to the FEATURE_FLAGS.md
file.
✅ Updated pull request passes all PRLinter validations. Dismissing previous PRLinter review.
Co-authored-by: paulhcsun <47882901+paulhcsun@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: paulhcsun <47882901+paulhcsun@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: paulhcsun <47882901+paulhcsun@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: paulhcsun <47882901+paulhcsun@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: paulhcsun <47882901+paulhcsun@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: paulhcsun <47882901+paulhcsun@users.noreply.github.com>
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.
Just adding a new line to keep the spacing consistent here.
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.
Just adding a new line to keep the spacing consistent here.
Add linebreak
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.
Nice work @ahammond, thanks again for the contribution. Looking forward to this fix being part of the next release!
@Mergifyio update |
✅ Branch has been successfully updated |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
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). |
Hey @ahammond, saw that the recommended value for this feature flag is false. This makes me question if we need a feature flag or not. I see feature flags as a way to change default behavior while staying backwards compatible. If you only need this behavior some of the time, I would think setting a property is the way to go. Is adding an optional prop to |
@scanlonp I don't have a strong feeling either way here. |
Got it. I saw @TheRealAmazonKendra commented on your related PR. I think there has been a concerted effort to limit our feature flags, and properties looks like the best path here, so let's go with properties. |
Going to revert this specific PR, but I will be attentive to your two PRs so that we can get them in quickly for you. |
@scanlonp to clarify, I don't care how it is solved, I care that it is solved. We are now 4 weeks since this fix was initially pushed. Regarding the props based PR I pushed on Fri Apr 5th, I addressed the comments on Monday Apr 8th in the morning. FYI, as a workaround we have bundled the entire |
…icationListener.addAction() (#29746) ### Issue # (if applicable) Closes #29496 ### Reason for this change See #29513 (props based solution instead of feature-flag) ### Description of changes Adds a `removeSuffix` property to addAction method to address problems due to logicalId inconsistency. ### Description of how you validated changes UTs. Per IT document, integration tests are not necessary. ### Checklist - [x] My code adheres to the [CONTRIBUTING GUIDE](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md) and [DESIGN GUIDELINES](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/docs/DESIGN_GUIDELINES.md) ---- *By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license*
Issue ELBv2 logicalId inconsistency of ApplicationListenerRule logicalIds
Mitigates #29496
Reason for this change
People using ALBs who need to migrate from the
addTargetGroups()
convenience method to the lower leveladdAction()
method should not be blocked due to inconsistent logicalId's. Further, the logicalIds should be consistent going forward.Description of changes
There are two feature flags, one which sets a migration compat mode and another which fixed the behaviour to be consistent.
Description of how you validated changes
Unit testing.
Checklist
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license