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

AppSync Mapping Template Object Model #175

Closed
2 of 7 tasks
duarten opened this issue Jun 17, 2020 · 2 comments
Closed
2 of 7 tasks

AppSync Mapping Template Object Model #175

duarten opened this issue Jun 17, 2020 · 2 comments

Comments

@duarten
Copy link

duarten commented Jun 17, 2020

PR Champion
#177

Description

AppSync Mapping Templates apply complex transformations to incoming GraphQL requests and to the responses from the data sources. There are multiple facilities that AppSync exposes to help write them, such as variable declaration, access to a Cognito identity, etc. In the CDK, as well as in the console, they're mostly written as raw strings. We propose here a well-defined, typed interface, to make writing mapping templates less error prone, and to make the AppSync facilities discoverable.

Progress

I've been implementing the RFC contents for my company to leverage; currently modeled mostly DynamoDB APIs.

  • Tracking Issue Created
  • RFC PR Created
  • Core Team Member Assigned
  • Initial Approval / Final Comment Period
  • Ready For Implementation
    • implementation issue 1
  • Resolved
@MrArnoldPalmer MrArnoldPalmer self-assigned this Jun 17, 2020
@eladb eladb added status/review Proposal pending review/revision and removed status/proposed Newly proposed RFC labels Jun 23, 2020
@MrArnoldPalmer
Copy link
Contributor

Since JS resolvers are coming, we put this on hold. Let's reopen when we have another design outlined.

@mrgrain mrgrain added status/rejected and removed status/review Proposal pending review/revision labels Oct 18, 2023
@mrgrain
Copy link
Contributor

mrgrain commented Oct 18, 2023

Superceded by reality. We appreciate the effort that has gone into this proposal. Marking an RFCs as rejected is not a one-way door. If you have made substantial changes to the proposal, please open a new issue/RFC. You might also consider raising a PR to aws/aws-cdk directly or self-publishing to Construct Hub.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants