-
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
docs(apigateway): add warning about split stack technique #29691
Changes from 2 commits
a19219c
83563fd
d4dfaa8
874c6d6
a34c249
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
@@ -267,6 +267,10 @@ The following example uses sets up two Resources '/pets' and '/books' in separat | |||||
|
||||||
[Resources grouped into nested stacks](test/integ.restapi-import.lit.ts) | ||||||
|
||||||
> **Warning:** With the above code, no Deployment is created even if there are changes to the resources, and the latest resources are not reflected. | ||||||
To create a Deployment, you need to use [`Deployment.addToLogicalId()`](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cdk/api/v2/docs/aws-cdk-lib.aws_apigateway.Deployment.html#addwbrtowbrlogicalwbriddata). | ||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. If we provide a workaround of using And added
Suggested change
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This may not be necessary. |
||||||
Currently, it is possible to work around this issue with a workaround implementation. Please refer to the [related issue](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/issues/13526). | ||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The reason I asked you to write specific workarounds in the above threads is because I thought that just posting the link in question would not be enough for users to know what to do. If we write the workarounds, do we need to post the issue link here? Is there more information packed into the issue than that? (It's already closed, so just posting the link may cause users to close the page. If you want to include it, it might be a good idea to tell them what they should look for.) There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. (Is this a bug in the first place...? If it is a bug that needs to be resolved, perhaps the best course of action is to open a new issue and work on it. If it's not a bug, then I'm not sure, but maybe there's no need to post a link to the issue here...) There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Thank you very much for the detailed review. It is challenging to determine whether this is a bug, as similar issues have been raised multiple times in the past. In those cases, workarounds have been shared, and the issues have either been closed or remain unresolved due to the time required to address them. The reason why the deployment is not created is that the object obtained by Reference Issues:
The concern is that developers considering stack splitting may find it difficult to discover this problem. The current issue with the documentation is that it shares the implementation of stack splitting where automatic deployment is not performed. Would it be appropriate to add the implementation of
Alternatively, if this is a long-standing issue, should we wait for a resolution, even though the timeline is uncertain? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Thanks for clearing.
I'm not sure, if the implementation is incomplete and remains the another issue, it may not be appropriate to recommend it... It would also be helpful to just state that deployment must be done manually when resources are changed. I think it's important to write only what we know completely.
I don't see the need to wait all, as there is no guarantee that the solution will be found, and in the meantime, there will be new users who will be in trouble. |
||||||
|
||||||
## Integration Targets | ||||||
|
||||||
Methods are associated with backend integrations, which are invoked when this | ||||||
|
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.
With this sentence, it may appear that a deployment will not be created even once... (But it will be created the first time.)
It would be also good to add a note that it needs to be deployed manually to reflect the latest resources.
And I think the
Deployment
might be good to be a lower case because it didn't seem to refer to the CDK resource (construct) name. (If you are referring to the CDK construct nameDeployment
, it would be better to enclose them in back quotation marks.)