-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 378
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
aws-sdk-go-v2 - v1.3.0 #602
aws-sdk-go-v2 - v1.3.0 #602
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.
Thank you both @enderv and @smcavallo for driving this huge PR!
} | ||
config, err := external.LoadDefaultAWSConfig(shared) | ||
return &config, err | ||
return &cfg, err |
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 will defer to @hasheddan for reviewing these authentication parts.
if awsErr, ok := err.(awserr.Error); ok { | ||
return awserr.New(awsErr.Code(), awsErr.Message(), nil) | ||
} | ||
// TODO cvodak revisit 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.
FWIW, we cannot merge without handling 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.
Would you be able to test whether we need this for this v2 SDK? The reason we have it is to remove the request id from the error so that we don't get re-queued immediately since there is a change at every reconcile. If v2 errors don't contain a unique request id, then it might be fine not to have any handling here.
@@ -18,49 +18,49 @@ package cloudformation | |||
|
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 think this pkg/clients/cloudformation
folder is remnant of old EKS cluster creation. We can delete the whole folder as it's not used anywhere.
Wow, this is a huge PR, I had not seen it. I wonder if provider-aws should have a freeze until this is merged? I suspect it would be hard to prevent loosing commits/bug fixes or get merge conflict related bugs. if we don't get this in soon. I'm sure you already have thought about a plan here, but I think it might be a good idea to communicate it with a pinned issue. Will there be a release first, and then focus on this before allowing further changes? |
@chlunde I don't think we have a written plan but having a release -> merging this -> having another release right after that could be a good idea.
Most changes coming into provider-aws are code-generated resources which use v1 SDK, so I don't think we need a freeze for PRs. |
if awsErr, ok := err.(awserr.Error); ok { | ||
return awserr.New(awsErr.Code(), awsErr.Message(), nil) | ||
} | ||
// TODO cvodak revisit 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.
Would you be able to test whether we need this for this v2 SDK? The reason we have it is to remove the request id from the error so that we don't get re-queued immediately since there is a change at every reconcile. If v2 errors don't contain a unique request id, then it might be fine not to have any handling here.
What is the plan for merging this? |
Signed-off-by: smcavallo <smcavallo@hotmail.com>
3f1bdd7
to
fede498
Compare
Thanks for pushing an update @smcavallo ! The PR was waiting an action from me but I couldn't get to it for quite a while, having a month-long leave in between. I'll review as soon as possible. |
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.
@smcavallo seems like there are compilation errors, some of them because of the diff lines added by git during resolution conflict. Could you make sure no error is thrown when you run make reviewable
?
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@ | |||
|
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 think we need to update build
submodule to latest to so that crd cleanup runs properly to delete these two lines.
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
if db.PendingModifiedValues != nil { | ||
o.PendingModifiedValues = v1beta1.PendingModifiedValues{ | ||
<<<<<<< HEAD |
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 think this is a remnant from merge conflict resolution that we need to remove.
@@ -73,6 +75,9 @@ func GenerateCreateCertificateInput(name string, p *v1alpha1.CertificateParamete | |||
} | |||
|
|||
// GenerateCertificateStatus is used to produce CertificateExternalStatus from acm.certificateStatus | |||
<<<<<<< HEAD |
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 think this is remnant from the conflict resolution we need to remove.
we need this also to support Spot Instances for EKS #228 |
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'll merge this PR and open another small one to fix the issues so that we get the rebasing stuff out of the way.
@enderv @smcavallo Thank you so much for this PR! It's a great contribution that will unblock many use cases users have been waiting for 🙂
Description of your changes
aws-sdk-go-v2 latest - https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/releases/tag/v1.3.0
go 1.16 supported for providers as part of upbound/build#140
Fixes #
#383
I have:
make reviewable test
to ensure this PR is ready for review.How has this code been tested
Unit tests only