chore: revert casing of EFSVolumeConfiguration to prevent breaking changes#10483
Merged
mergify[bot] merged 2 commits intobump/1.64.0from Sep 22, 2020
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
Title does not follow the guidelines of Conventional Commits. Please adjust title before merge. |
NetaNir
approved these changes
Sep 22, 2020
Contributor
|
Thank you for contributing! Your pull request will be updated from master and then merged automatically (do not update manually, and be sure to allow changes to be pushed to your fork). |
Collaborator
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
Contributor
|
Thank you for contributing! Your pull request will be updated from master and then merged automatically (do not update manually, and be sure to allow changes to be pushed to your fork). |
|
@NetaNir Do you have any news about when this modification will be reverted? |
rix0rrr
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 1, 2022
About a year ago, ECS TaskDefinition handler changed the casing of some EFS-related properties: * `EfsVolumeConfiguration` -> `EFSVolumeConfiguration` * `FileSystemId` -> `FilesystemId` They continue to accept both casings, but emit a warning when the deprecated casing is used. When the new casing was introduced, we reverted to the old casing in order to not cause resource replacements. However: - The old casings emit warnings; when the service/task creation fails due to unrelated reasons, users see the warnings, interpret them as errors, then stop looking and come and tell us that there is a bug in CDK. - Task definition replacement isn't actually a problem. Task definitions can be replaced for something as trivial as changing CPU count or memory size. Replacing them for a change that is effectively a no-op shouldn't matter. Yes, this will restart `Service`s based on these Task Definitions, but if you are only running 1 copy of the Task you have made the decision not to care about potential downtime of your service. Maintaining the patch does not seem worth the cost/benefit ratio. Reverts #10483, closes #15025.
4 tasks
mergify bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 6, 2022
About a year ago, ECS TaskDefinition handler changed the casing of some EFS-related properties: * `EfsVolumeConfiguration` -> `EFSVolumeConfiguration` * `FileSystemId` -> `FilesystemId` They continue to accept both casings, but emit a warning when the deprecated casing is used. When the new casing was introduced, we reverted to the old casing in order to not cause resource replacements. However: - The old casings emit warnings; when the service/task creation fails due to unrelated reasons, users see the warnings, interpret them as errors, then stop looking and come and tell us that there is a bug in CDK. - Task definition replacement isn't actually a problem. Task definitions can be replaced for something as trivial as changing CPU count or memory size. Replacing them for a change that is effectively a no-op shouldn't matter. Yes, this will restart `Service`s based on these Task Definitions, but if you are only running 1 copy of the Task you have made the decision not to care about potential downtime of your service. Maintaining the patch does not seem worth the cost/benefit ratio. Reverts #10483, closes #15025. ---- ### All Submissions: * [ ] Have you followed the guidelines in our [Contributing guide?](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md) ### Adding new Unconventional Dependencies: * [ ] This PR adds new unconventional dependencies following the process described [here](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md/#adding-new-unconventional-dependencies) ### New Features * [ ] Have you added the new feature to an [integration test](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/master/INTEGRATION_TESTS.md)? * [ ] Did you use `cdk-integ` to deploy the infrastructure and generate the snapshot (i.e. `cdk-integ` without `--dry-run`)? *By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license*
StevePotter
pushed a commit
to StevePotter/aws-cdk
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 27, 2022
About a year ago, ECS TaskDefinition handler changed the casing of some EFS-related properties: * `EfsVolumeConfiguration` -> `EFSVolumeConfiguration` * `FileSystemId` -> `FilesystemId` They continue to accept both casings, but emit a warning when the deprecated casing is used. When the new casing was introduced, we reverted to the old casing in order to not cause resource replacements. However: - The old casings emit warnings; when the service/task creation fails due to unrelated reasons, users see the warnings, interpret them as errors, then stop looking and come and tell us that there is a bug in CDK. - Task definition replacement isn't actually a problem. Task definitions can be replaced for something as trivial as changing CPU count or memory size. Replacing them for a change that is effectively a no-op shouldn't matter. Yes, this will restart `Service`s based on these Task Definitions, but if you are only running 1 copy of the Task you have made the decision not to care about potential downtime of your service. Maintaining the patch does not seem worth the cost/benefit ratio. Reverts aws#10483, closes aws#15025. ---- ### All Submissions: * [ ] Have you followed the guidelines in our [Contributing guide?](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md) ### Adding new Unconventional Dependencies: * [ ] This PR adds new unconventional dependencies following the process described [here](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md/#adding-new-unconventional-dependencies) ### New Features * [ ] Have you added the new feature to an [integration test](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/master/INTEGRATION_TESTS.md)? * [ ] Did you use `cdk-integ` to deploy the infrastructure and generate the snapshot (i.e. `cdk-integ` without `--dry-run`)? *By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license*
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
From Eli -
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license