Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

 Sign up
Appearance settings

CFNv2: parameter resolution and presentation#12796

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 ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account

Open
simonrw wants to merge7 commits intomain
base:main
Choose a base branch
Loading
fromcfn/v2/describe-parameters

Conversation

simonrw
Copy link
Contributor

@simonrwsimonrw commentedJun 24, 2025•
edited
Loading

Motivation

We currently don't support the resolution of SSM parameters in the templateParameters when performing template describing, only executing. This does not match AWS behaviour, which represents the resolved values as well as the given parameters.

Changes

  • Move SSM parameter resolution to the preprocessing step as it's performed duringcreate_change_set, so we should do it before describing and executing
  • Add significant test for resolving SSM parameters
  • Remove skip from cdk bootstrap since it's no longer failing
  • Add structured type to parameters when describing so we can represent the original value (e.g. SSM parameter name) and resolved value (the SSM parameter value)

@simonrwsimonrw added the semver: minorNon-breaking changes which can be included in minor releases, but not in patch releases labelJun 24, 2025
@simonrwsimonrw added the semver: minorNon-breaking changes which can be included in minor releases, but not in patch releases labelJun 24, 2025
@simonrwsimonrw marked this pull request as draftJune 24, 2025 15:26
@github-actionsGitHub Actions
Copy link

github-actionsbot commentedJun 24, 2025•
edited
Loading

Test Results - Preflight, Unit

0 tests   - 21 795   0 ✅  - 20 138   0s ⏱️ - 6m 28s
0 suites  -      1   0 💤  -  1 657 
0 files    -      1   0 ❌ ±     0 

Results for commit2ac855d. ± Comparison against base commite558996.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@github-actionsGitHub Actions
Copy link

github-actionsbot commentedJun 24, 2025•
edited
Loading

Test Results (amd64) - Acceptance

7 tests  ±0   5 ✅ ±0   3m 8s ⏱️ -1s
1 suites ±0   2 💤 ±0 
1 files   ±0   0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit6c4cd17. ± Comparison against base commit62f162f.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@github-actionsGitHub Actions
Copy link

github-actionsbot commentedJun 24, 2025•
edited
Loading

LocalStack Community integration with Pro

  2 files  ±    0    2 suites  ±0   23m 0s ⏱️ - 1h 19m 46s
888 tests  - 4 025  323 ✅  - 3 814  565 💤  - 211  0 ❌ ±0 
890 runs   - 4 025  323 ✅  - 3 814  567 💤  - 211  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit2ac855d. ± Comparison against base commite558996.

This pull requestremoves 4026 andadds 1 tests.Note that renamed tests count towards both.
tests.aws.scenario.bookstore.test_bookstore.TestBookstoreApplication ‑ test_lambda_dynamodbtests.aws.scenario.bookstore.test_bookstore.TestBookstoreApplication ‑ test_opensearch_crudtests.aws.scenario.bookstore.test_bookstore.TestBookstoreApplication ‑ test_search_bookstests.aws.scenario.bookstore.test_bookstore.TestBookstoreApplication ‑ test_setuptests.aws.scenario.kinesis_firehose.test_kinesis_firehose.TestKinesisFirehoseScenario ‑ test_kinesis_firehose_s3tests.aws.scenario.lambda_destination.test_lambda_destination_scenario.TestLambdaDestinationScenario ‑ test_destination_snstests.aws.scenario.lambda_destination.test_lambda_destination_scenario.TestLambdaDestinationScenario ‑ test_infratests.aws.scenario.loan_broker.test_loan_broker.TestLoanBrokerScenario ‑ test_prefill_dynamodb_tabletests.aws.scenario.loan_broker.test_loan_broker.TestLoanBrokerScenario ‑ test_stepfunctions_input_recipient_list[step_function_input0-SUCCEEDED]tests.aws.scenario.loan_broker.test_loan_broker.TestLoanBrokerScenario ‑ test_stepfunctions_input_recipient_list[step_function_input1-SUCCEEDED]…
tests.aws.services.cloudformation.v2.test_change_sets ‑ test_dynamic_ssm_parameter_lookup
This pull requestremoves 212 skipped tests andadds 1 skipped test.Note that renamed tests count towards both.
tests.aws.scenario.kinesis_firehose.test_kinesis_firehose.TestKinesisFirehoseScenario ‑ test_kinesis_firehose_s3tests.aws.scenario.loan_broker.test_loan_broker.TestLoanBrokerScenario ‑ test_stepfunctions_input_recipient_list[step_function_input4-FAILED]tests.aws.scenario.mythical_mysfits.test_mythical_misfits.TestMythicalMisfitsScenario ‑ test_deployed_infra_statetests.aws.scenario.mythical_mysfits.test_mythical_misfits.TestMythicalMisfitsScenario ‑ test_populate_datatests.aws.scenario.mythical_mysfits.test_mythical_misfits.TestMythicalMisfitsScenario ‑ test_user_clicks_are_storedtests.aws.services.apigateway.test_apigateway_api.TestApiGatewayApiRestApi ‑ test_get_api_case_insensitivetests.aws.services.apigateway.test_apigateway_api.TestApigatewayIntegration ‑ test_integration_response_invalid_responsetemplatestests.aws.services.apigateway.test_apigateway_api.TestApigatewayIntegration ‑ test_put_integration_request_parameter_bool_typetests.aws.services.apigateway.test_apigateway_basic.TestAPIGateway ‑ test_api_gateway_authorizer_crudtests.aws.services.apigateway.test_apigateway_basic.TestAPIGateway ‑ test_api_gateway_http_integration_with_path_request_parameter…
tests.aws.services.cloudformation.v2.test_change_sets ‑ test_dynamic_ssm_parameter_lookup

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@github-actionsGitHub Actions
Copy link

github-actionsbot commentedJun 24, 2025•
edited
Loading

Test Results (amd64) - Integration, Bootstrap

  5 files    5 suites   34m 34s ⏱️
911 tests 348 ✅ 563 💤 0 ❌
917 runs  348 ✅ 569 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit6c4cd17.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@simonrwsimonrw marked this pull request as ready for reviewJune 24, 2025 22:54
@simonrwsimonrw requested a review fromMEPalmaJune 24, 2025 22:55
@@ -1382,7 +1394,7 @@ def _type_name_of(value: Maybe[Any]) -> str:

@staticmethod
def _is_terminal(value: Any) -> bool:
return type(value) in {int, float, bool, str, None, NothingType}
return type(value) in {int, float, bool, str, None, NothingType, ResolvedParameter}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

Can you help me understand why we need this in the modeler?

@@ -304,6 +308,10 @@ def _resolve_reference(self, logical_id: str) -> PreprocEntityDelta:
node_parameter = self._get_node_parameter_if_exists(parameter_name=logical_id)
if isinstance(node_parameter, NodeParameter):
parameter_delta = self.visit(node_parameter)
if isinstance(parameter_delta.before, ResolvedParameter):
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

Why do we need to first wrap the relevant values in a ResolvedParameter class and only evaluate them here?

region_name=self._change_set.region_name,
stack_parameter_value=after,
)
after = ResolvedParameter(value=after, resolved_value=resolved_value)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

why are we not resolving the resolved parameter here (this visitor function), but later?

@simonrwsimonrw added this to thePlayground milestoneJun 30, 2025
@simonrwsimonrwforce-pushed thecfn/v2/describe-parameters branch from6c4cd17 to2ac855dCompareJuly 3, 2025 15:31
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account?Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@MEPalmaMEPalmaMEPalma left review comments

@dominikschubertdominikschubertAwaiting requested review from dominikschubertdominikschubert is a code owner

@pinzonpinzonAwaiting requested review from pinzonpinzon is a code owner

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
semver: minorNon-breaking changes which can be included in minor releases, but not in patch releases
Projects
None yet
Milestone
Playground
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants
@simonrw@MEPalma
[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp