Unique rule names for multiple CloudWatch expressions (#1727) #2102
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
A mixture of two cases that were handled individually uncovers an incorrect behavior: when a function has multiple event expressions AND the resulting rule name would be >= 64 characters long, all expressions get the same hash, so only the last expression is scheduled. In this commit, the index of the expression is used to build the hash, but only if the index is not zero — this is possibly not needed, but ensures current hashes are preserved.
1 similar comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
A mixture of two cases that were handled individually uncovers an incorrect behavior: when a function has multiple event expressions AND the resulting rule name would be >= 64 characters long, all expressions get the same hash, so only the last expression is scheduled.
In my fix, the index of the expression is used to build the hash, but only if the index is not zero. My rationale for this was preserving hashes for current rules. This seems unneeded (it doesn't seem like it would break anything without caring about this) but may prevent surprises. I'd like some feedback on whether this is an appropriate choice.
GitHub Issues
#1727