feat(pipes-targets): add step functions state machine target#29987
feat(pipes-targets): add step functions state machine target#29987mergify[bot] merged 1 commit intoaws:mainfrom
Conversation
aws-cdk-automation
left a comment
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.
1db8840 to
d35ec0c
Compare
✅ Updated pull request passes all PRLinter validations. Dismissing previous PRLinter review.
141dbf5 to
08d94b7
Compare
|
@mrgrain just wanted to ask if there is something else I should change or does an additional person needs to review my PR (or I just need to wait a bit more)? |
Someone else should get around to this eventually. I'm not actually working on the CDK anymore 🙈 |
|
Thanks, appreciate it! Lets hope its not necessary :D |
|
@mrgrain unfortunately I need to come back to your offer as the PR hasnt been merged and a week passed. So I hope pinging you helps :D Thanks! |
mrgrain
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks great! Got a couple more minor renames and let's set a default for InvocationType so that most users won't have to specify parameters at all.
Also trying to get @RaphaelManke to review as well
RaphaelManke
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall great job @WtfJoke.
I have only one thing that I am not 100% happy about.
Can we define a common name for Step function that is used all over the place?
Currently we have :
- AWS Step Functions
- StepFunction
- StateMachine
- stepFunctionStateMachine
- sfn
The EventBridge targets constructs calls the target
SfnStateMachine
Maybe we should align to the naming of that because its a name from an already stable package.
Whats your thought in that @mrgrain ?
My suggestion is, name the target SfnStateMachine
daeeba8 to
f4b434b
Compare
This is something I am not happy about it as well. Please keep in mind its not only the Targets name (StepFunctionTarket vs StateMachineTarget vs SfnStateMachineTarget (@RaphaelManke you meant to include Currently in the docs:
or
or in the README
I am not so eager on writing SfnStateMachine everywhere in the docs. I would favor choosing StepFunction or StateMachine there. P.S: I've rebased my changes on latest main and incorporated the review feedback from @mrgrain. |
This should be used in docs, when referring to the service.
This should never be used, given that it is missing an
This the correct way to refer to just the resource.
Ignoring the case, this Would be correct way to name the combination of service & resource
I'm inclined to agree.
Probably. I think we named the queue target wrong:
I come to the same conclusion, in particular about dropping the There could be an argument about calling it |
fc63265 to
962eb74
Compare
Co-authored-by: RaphaelManke <RaphaelManke@users.noreply.github.com>
962eb74 to
2712ba1
Compare
|
So now everything should match. Thank you, that you took time for repeated reviews @mrgrain. |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
|
Thank you for contributing! Your pull request will be updated from main and then merged automatically (do not update manually, and be sure to allow changes to be pushed to your fork). |
|
Thanks a bunch! |
|
Comments on closed issues and PRs are hard for our team to see. If you need help, please open a new issue that references this one. |
Issue #29665
Closes #29665
Reason for this change
Step Function target is not supported yet by pipes-targets.
Description of changes
invocationTypea required parameter, since this made the code clearer and make users aware of how they want the step function to be invoked.The AWS::Pipes::Pipe PipeTargetStateMachineParameters has this as an optional parameter (defaulting to Request-Response), which can lead the user unknowingly in a broken pipe, because cdk's StateMachines default to Standard Workflow, which is not compatible with Request-Response Invocation Type.
Description of how you validated changes
Checklist
I've talked with @RaphaelManke and he was fine for me opening up a PR (put him as a co-author nevertheless) :)
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license