(feat): introduce custom runtime aspect class for nodejs #29998
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
| public visit(construct: IConstruct): void { | ||
|
|
||
| //To handle custom providers | ||
| if (construct instanceof cdk.CustomResourceProviderBase) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we need to check for instances of CustomResourceProviderBase, Provider, or ReceptRule. At their core these are all the same construct: CfnResource of type AWS::Lambda::Function. This should be all we need to look for.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is more to the point that we want to update it only for 'CustomResources' and not for all lambda functions which i think we can cover with CfnResource of type AWS::Lambda::Function , but this is more suitable for the use case of customResources only
| abstract class RuntimeAspectsBase implements IAspect { | ||
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * The string key for the runtime |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This isn't descriptive of what targetRuntime is. How about something like, "The runtime that the aspect will target for updates while walking the construct tree."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also why is this public? This seems like an implementation detail.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah, these strings was to pass initial lints, have more formatted version and correct typing in latest commit.
| /** | ||
| * RuntimeAspect | ||
| */ | ||
| export class RuntimeAspect extends RuntimeAspectsBase { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we really want to expose this? Additionally, if I'm using this I'm not clear what key is. Also, string is extremely loose. I could pass anything as a string. It seems like we should be building an enum-like class on RuntimeAspect which is extensible. Introducing NodeJsAspect means we would need a new class for every single runtime. I realize we may never introduce new runtimes, but we should make this extensible. How about something like this:
export class RuntimeAspect extends RuntimeAspectsBase {
public static nodeJs20() {
// return class implementation
}
}This may be better to put everything on RuntimeAspectsBase though since we would just be returning the implementation and another class is probably extra unnecessary code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
updated in latest commit for your review
| } | ||
|
|
||
| export class NodeJsAspect { | ||
| public static modifyRuntimeTo(key: lambda.Runtime) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See my above comment. I think a better user experience here is to do all the construction for them. We can expose options like nodeJs20 and then we can to all the construction like passing the associated Runtime for the user. This also prevents the user from breaking themselves, like passing node 16 which would be breaking since it only comes with SDK v2.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, was trying with implementation earlier too but it was not reflecting the updated nodejs version in template this way, gave it a second attempt and it seems to be working now updated in latest commit.
|
The pull request linter fails with the following errors: PRs must pass status checks before we can provide a meaningful review. If you would like to request an exemption from the status checks or clarification on feedback, please leave a comment on this PR containing |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
Issue # (if applicable)
Closes #.
Reason for this change
Description of changes
Introduce custom aspect class
Description of how you validated changes
Checklist
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license