Skip to content

Conversation

@peterrsongg
Copy link
Contributor

@peterrsongg peterrsongg commented Nov 20, 2025

Description

Adds complex shapes to the S3NeedsCustomUpdate. Since these shapes are excluded from generation (or heavily customized). I'm backfilling those shapes that I missed in previous PRs so that the generator will throw an exception if any of these shapes are updated. This is a temporary solution. The longer term solution will work as a validator or an acknowledgment in the build system so that we don't mess up our preview build failure metrics.

Motivation and Context

Testing

Dry run for base branch passed

Screenshots (if appropriate)

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist

  • All new and existing tests passed

License

  • I confirm that this pull request can be released under the Apache 2 license

stack-info: PR: #4145, branch: peterrsongg/petesong/phase-3-pr-3/1
stack-info: PR: #4146, branch: peterrsongg/petesong/phase-3-pr-3/2
stack-info: PR: #4147, branch: peterrsongg/petesong/phase-3-pr-3/3
stack-info: PR: #4148, branch: peterrsongg/petesong/phase-3-pr-3/4
stack-info: PR: #4149, branch: peterrsongg/petesong/phase-3-pr-3/5
@peterrsongg peterrsongg force-pushed the peterrsongg/petesong/phase-3-pr-3/5 branch from 875e96a to 663b399 Compare November 20, 2025 17:37
@peterrsongg peterrsongg marked this pull request as ready for review November 20, 2025 19:43
{ "AnalyticsAndOperator", 2 },
{ "IntelligentTieringAndOperator", 2}
};
if (customUpdateShapes.TryGetValue(shape.Name, out int membersCount))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why we are only checking the membersCount? What if the docs changed or the changed something with the validation and made them more open?
I know this isn't part of this PR and I'm not sure if I reviewed the first PR and missed it.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

hmm that is a good point, a doc change wouldn't trigger this validation. This is a short-term solution though. Longer term we need a trebuchet validator.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am ok which this only until the customization flag is no longer automatically set on the feature for the reason you stated where we don't want to have validation failures. Please add a task to add the validator to the S3 project.

@peterrsongg peterrsongg changed the base branch from peterrsongg/petesong/phase-3-pr-3/4 to petesong/4145-4149 November 21, 2025 18:20
@peterrsongg peterrsongg merged commit 8b571de into petesong/4145-4149 Nov 21, 2025
3 checks passed
@peterrsongg peterrsongg deleted the peterrsongg/petesong/phase-3-pr-3/5 branch November 21, 2025 18:20
@peterrsongg peterrsongg mentioned this pull request Nov 21, 2025
10 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants