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

feat(aws-codepipeline): make input Artifacts explicit when creating Actions #1389

Closed

Conversation

skinny85
Copy link
Contributor

BREAKING CHANGE: previously, the CodePipeline Construct would attempt
to wire the inputs of Actions implicitly, if they were not provided.
Now, this functionality has been removed, and we require specifying the
inputs for Build, Test and Deploy Actions explicitly.

Part of the agreed upon changes to the CodePipeline Construct library.


Pull Request Checklist

Please check all boxes, including N/A items:

Testing

  • Unit test and/or integration test added
  • Toolkit change?: integration tests manually executed (paste output to the PR description)
  • Init template change?: coordinated update of integration tests (currently maintained in a private repo).

Documentation

  • README: README and/or documentation topic updated
  • jsdocs: All public APIs documented

Title and description

  • Change type: Title is prefixed with change type:
    • fix(module): <title> bug fix (patch)
    • feat(module): <title> feature/capability (minor)
    • chore(module): <title> won't appear in changelog
    • build(module): <title> won't appear in changelog
  • Title format: Title uses lower case and doesn't end with a period
  • Breaking change?: Last paragraph of description is: BREAKING CHANGE: <describe exactly what changed and how to achieve similar behavior + link to documentation/gist/issue if more details are required>
  • References: Indicate issues fixed via: Fixes #xxx or Closes #xxx

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license.

@skinny85 skinny85 requested a review from a team as a code owner December 18, 2018 22:08
@eladb
Copy link
Contributor

eladb commented Dec 19, 2018

Looking at this, I am having second thoughts about this change. What value do we add by complicating the API and making it more verbose. We have a design tenet to only require configuration when we can’t deduce it automatic (“smart defaults”) and when I am looking at this change I think it violates this tenet by asking users to add a lot of configuration that can easily be safely reduced from their intent.

@skinny85 skinny85 force-pushed the feature/explicit-pipeline-artifacts branch from 130f81b to 0e2f1f1 Compare December 19, 2018 19:28
@skinny85
Copy link
Contributor Author

Rebased on top of the new master to get the builds going again (master was broken before).

…ctions.

BREAKING CHANGE: previously, the CodePipeline Construct would attempt
to wire the inputs of Actions implicitly, if they were not provided.
Now, this functionality has been removed, and we require specifying the
inputs for Build, Test and Deploy Actions explicitly.
@skinny85 skinny85 force-pushed the feature/explicit-pipeline-artifacts branch from 0e2f1f1 to a536086 Compare December 19, 2018 21:03
@skinny85
Copy link
Contributor Author

Missed a test in the app-delivery package.

Copy link
Contributor

@rix0rrr rix0rrr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I support this change.

@rix0rrr
Copy link
Contributor

rix0rrr commented Jan 15, 2019

The PR has languished for too long and now it needs to merge.

@skinny85
Copy link
Contributor Author

This PR is currently superseded by #1590.

@eladb
Copy link
Contributor

eladb commented Feb 4, 2019

@skinny85 Is this superseded by #1590?

@skinny85
Copy link
Contributor Author

skinny85 commented Feb 4, 2019

@skinny85 Is this superseded by #1590?

Yep. Check out the comment right above yours :).

@eladb
Copy link
Contributor

eladb commented Feb 4, 2019

LOL. Let's close it?

@skinny85
Copy link
Contributor Author

skinny85 commented Feb 4, 2019

Sure.

@skinny85 skinny85 closed this Feb 4, 2019
@skinny85 skinny85 deleted the feature/explicit-pipeline-artifacts branch September 10, 2019 16:39
@NGL321 NGL321 added the contribution/core This is a PR that came from AWS. label Sep 27, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
contribution/core This is a PR that came from AWS.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants