fix: Update GuBaseSecurityGroup with revised logicalId logic
#430
Conversation
This file contains 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
akash1810
force-pushed
the
aa-GuBaseSecurityGroup-logicalId
branch
from
48ac074
to
b9a568b
Compare
jacobwinch
approved these changes
Apr 13, 2021
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 8.1.2 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What does this change?
In #364 we placed the logic of overriding a construct's logicalId into a single place.
In this change, we're updating the
GuBaseSecurityGroupconstruct to adopt the new logic. As of #418 it's as simple as using theGuMigratableConstructmixin!Does this change require changes to existing projects or CDK CLI?
Possibly.
The overriding logic in
GuBaseSecurityGrouphas changed. If stacks are making use of the current (broken?) logic, they will need to be attended to.How to test
See tests?
How can we measure success?
A simpler, DRYer, code base?
Have we considered potential risks?
As noted above, the path to update to the next version of the library might require a bit of attention.