-
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
feat(pipes-enrichments): support API destination enrichment #31312
feat(pipes-enrichments): support API destination enrichment #31312
Conversation
bind(pipe: IPipe): EnrichmentParametersConfig { | ||
|
||
const httpParameters: CfnPipe.PipeEnrichmentHttpParametersProperty | undefined = | ||
this.headerParameters ?? |
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.
Thanks for the PR @mazyu36 - overall looks good to me. I'm just wondering about the assignment of the httpParameters
variable here - in practice, does it make sense to pass in HTTP parameters if one of the parameter values is undefined? (It might be nice to add a test for this, too?)
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.
@sumupitchayan
Yes, I think it makes sense. For example, when calling an API that only requires path parameters.
This is in line with similar implementations as follows:
https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/packages/@aws-cdk/aws-pipes-targets-alpha/lib/api-destination.ts
https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-events-targets/lib/api-destination.ts
I think it depends on the design of the API being called, so it would be sufficient to confirm that the parameters are set in the unit test.
https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/pull/31312/files#diff-0523525438cc22991d3e0555d86f9ec9c8a79cfa4a86599cdb2ea8d4075d4d84R63
I think adding integration tests unnecessary.
What do you think?
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.
@mazyu36 thanks for the clarification. Looks good to me then 👍
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). |
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). |
Comments on closed issues and PRs are hard for our team to see. |
Issue # (if applicable)
Closes #29383 .
Reason for this change
To support API destination enrichment for EventBridge pipes.
Description of changes
Add
ApiDestinationEnrichment
class.Description of how you validated changes
Add unit tests and an integ test.
Checklist
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license