feat(core): RemovalPolicies.of(scope)#32283
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.
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #32283 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 82.24% 82.37% +0.13%
==========================================
Files 119 120 +1
Lines 6875 6933 +58
Branches 1161 1169 +8
==========================================
+ Hits 5654 5711 +57
- Misses 1118 1119 +1
Partials 103 103
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
RemovalPolicys.of(scope)
|
This PR has been in the CHANGES REQUESTED state for 3 weeks, and looks abandoned. To keep this PR from being closed, please continue work on it. If not, it will automatically be closed in a week. |
✅ Updated pull request passes all PRLinter validations. Dismissing previous PRLinter review.
go-to-k
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've only seen halfway through, but I'll leave you with my comments so far.
kaizencc
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @watany-dev thanks for continuing to iterate with me on this PR. sorry for the additional comments -- i want to make sure that this one is right before we send it out. my main thing is that removalPolicyAspect shouldn't be a property anymore, now that you've added MissingRemovalPolicies class. Please let me know if you have any questions, i'll continue to monitor this PR. Thanks!
| /** | ||
| * Whether to respect the removal policy that was previously applied to the resource. | ||
| * | ||
| * If set to `true`, the removal policy will only be applied if the resource | ||
| * doesn't already have a removal policy set. | ||
| * | ||
| * @default false | ||
| */ | ||
| readonly respectPreviousPolicy?: boolean; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i would expect this property to be deleted, now that the classes we expose determine this behavior. what would it mean to have a MissingRemovalPolicy.apply(..., { respectPreviousPolicy: false })?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry for my carelessness. I hope you are cured.
| */ | ||
| class RemovalPolicyAspect extends BaseRemovalPolicyAspect { | ||
| protected shouldApplyPolicy(cfnResource: CfnResource): boolean { | ||
| // If respectPreviousPolicy is true, only apply if no policy exists |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i was hoping respectPreviousPolicy was no longer a property set by the user. RemovalPolicyAspect should always apply the policy (i.e. it's as if respectPreviousPolicy was false). MissingRemovalPolicyAspect behaves as if respectPreviousPolicy was true.
that way, the user doesn't have to set respectPreviousPolicy and rahter just decides either to use RemovalPolicy or MissingRemovalPolicy.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh sorry! Unnecessary properties have disappeared! I may need to consult on this, but if priority is used in the removalPolicies to be overwritten, I'll issue a warning, right?
kaizencc
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
okay, approving @watany-dev! hopefully i didn't break the build with my changes but if i did i'll circle back and fix
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). |
|
Comments on closed issues and PRs are hard for our team to see. |
Issue # (if applicable)
N/A - New feature proposal
Reason for this change
Currently, applying removal policies to multiple resources requires setting them individually or using Tags as a workaround. This change introduces a new RemovalPolicies module that provides a more intuitive and type-safe way to manage removal policies across multiple resources, similar to the existing Tags API.
Description of changes
Added a new RemovalPolicies module that provides:
A similar interface to Tags.of() for managing removal policies
Type-safe resource type specifications using CloudFormation resource type strings
Ability to include or exclude specific resource types
Convenient methods for common removal policies (destroy, retain, snapshot, retainOnUpdateOrDelete)
Example usage:
Description of how you validated changes
TBD
Checklist
[x] My code adheres to the CONTRIBUTING GUIDE and DESIGN GUIDELINES
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license