Skip to content
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(lib): Keep specified empty objects #1329

Merged

Conversation

jsteinich
Copy link
Collaborator

Fixes #1182

This is an alternative to #1322 that doesn't alter the output json in other ways.
I initially thought this approach would have many other side effects, but early testing hasn't revealed any (other than other things that were broken).

@jsteinich
Copy link
Collaborator Author

This is fixing a regression from 0.7, so would be nice to get into 0.8.

Thinking about this some more, it does make sense why the check isn't needed. The entire object will simply be undefined / not present in cases where it hasn't been set, so having it be an empty object means that it needed to have be explicitly set in the 1st place and we should respect that when synthesizing.

@jsteinich
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Ran into some issues with how the OutputReference types were handled. I tried a couple solutions, but settled on only keeping and empty object for them when explicitly specified. I don't believe it's very common for an empty block to signify configuration, so needing to be intentional about it seems fine.

@jsteinich
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Apparently the updated generated providers were enough to run out of memory when building the providers integration test. Had to alter test setup slightly in order to give node a large heap size.

@jsteinich jsteinich force-pushed the keep_specified_empty_objects branch from 41e026a to a44a451 Compare December 2, 2021 04:34
@jsteinich
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Since main had a different approach added to deal with test memory, I cleaned this up to use that and just have the relevant changes.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Dec 4, 2022

I'm going to lock this pull request because it has been closed for 30 days. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues. If you've found a problem that seems related to this change, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Dec 4, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

AWS Wafv2WebAcl Missing default_action
3 participants