Update aws-go-sdk to v1.47.11 to support EKS Pod Identity

[mthemis-provenir]

Tracking issue

Closes #5794

Why are the changes needed?

Updates the AWS Go SDK to support EKS Pod Identity, a newer, more convenient way of authenticating service accounts to IAM roles.

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

To bring the AWS Go SDK up to the minimum required to support the feature.

How was this patch tested?

I tried to test the various modules however I kept getting the same error, so I then checked out the latest release (v1.13.1), reran everything and it failed at the same place, which makes me think it's something wrong with my setup. I did have to edit the PostgreSQL and Minio deployments because they aren't compatible with arm64, so it might be due to that. I'd very much appreciate it if anyone with a working environment could give this a quick test.

Check all the applicable boxes

• I updated the documentation accordingly.
• All new and existing tests passed.
• All commits are signed-off.

Related PRs

N/A

Docs link

None added, but can look to add documentation if desired.

[welcome]

Thank you for opening this pull request! 🙌

These tips will help get your PR across the finish line:

• Most of the repos have a PR template; if not, fill it out to the best of your knowledge.
• Sign off your commits (Reference: DCO Guide).

[mthemis-provenir]

I didn't want to contaminate the OP, but for the interested, this is the same place testing failed on, regardless of my changes or latest release.

2024/10/01 22:56:30 /home/matt/source/thirdparty/flyte/flyteadmin/tests/bootstrap.go:118 ERROR: relation "admin_tags" does not exist (SQLSTATE 42P01)
[6.087ms] [rows:0] TRUNCATE TABLE admin_tags;

2024/10/01 22:56:30 /home/matt/source/thirdparty/flyte/flyteadmin/tests/bootstrap.go:119 ERROR: relation "execution_admin_tags" does not exist (SQLSTATE 42P01)
[6.204ms] [rows:0] TRUNCATE TABLE execution_admin_tags;

2024/10/01 22:56:30 /home/matt/source/thirdparty/flyte/flyteadmin/tests/bootstrap.go:120
[26.574ms] [rows:0] TRUNCATE TABLE execution_tags;
=== RUN   TestGetWorkflows/TestGetWorkflowGrpc
=== RUN   TestGetWorkflows/TestGetWorkflowHTTP
=== RUN   TestGetWorkflows/TestListWorkflowGrpc
=== RUN   TestGetWorkflows/TestListWorkflowHTTP
=== RUN   TestGetWorkflows/TestListWorkflow_PaginationGrpc
=== RUN   TestGetWorkflows/TestListWorkflow_PaginationHTTP
=== RUN   TestGetWorkflows/TestListWorkflow_FiltersGrpc
=== RUN   TestGetWorkflows/TestListWorkflow_FiltersHTTP
--- PASS: TestGetWorkflows (0.85s)
    --- PASS: TestGetWorkflows/TestGetWorkflowGrpc (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestGetWorkflows/TestGetWorkflowHTTP (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestGetWorkflows/TestListWorkflowGrpc (0.01s)
    --- PASS: TestGetWorkflows/TestListWorkflowHTTP (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestGetWorkflows/TestListWorkflow_PaginationGrpc (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestGetWorkflows/TestListWorkflow_PaginationHTTP (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestGetWorkflows/TestListWorkflow_FiltersGrpc (0.00s)
    --- PASS: TestGetWorkflows/TestListWorkflow_FiltersHTTP (0.00s)
FAIL
FAIL	github.com/flyteorg/flyte/flyteadmin/tests	139.698s
FAIL
make: *** [Makefile:29: integration] Error 1

[Sovietaced]

I didn't want to contaminate the OP, but for the interested, this is the same place testing failed on, regardless of my changes or latest release.

I just kicked off the CI so we can see if it fails the unit tests there.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 36.35%. Comparing base (66ff152) to head (7ede8a6).
Report is 6 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #5796      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   36.31%   36.35%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files        1304     1304              
  Lines      110048   110147      +99     
==========================================
+ Hits        39964    40042      +78     
- Misses      65928    65938      +10     
- Partials     4156     4167      +11     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests-datacatalog	51.37% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flyteadmin	55.60% <ø> (+0.01%)	⬆️
unittests-flytecopilot	12.17% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flytectl	62.21% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flyteidl	7.17% <ø> (+0.04%)	⬆️
unittests-flyteplugins	53.35% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flytepropeller	42.02% <ø> (+0.09%)	⬆️
unittests-flytestdlib	55.37% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[mthemis-provenir]

I didn't want to contaminate the OP, but for the interested, this is the same place testing failed on, regardless of my changes or latest release.

I just kicked off the CI so we can see if it fails the unit tests there.

Thanks for that. Some of the failures are related to missing an update in flytectl which I've corrected, but the other failures I'm not really sure how they could relate to my updates.

[mthemis-provenir]

@Sovietaced It looks like it passed all the required tests, and the only failures seem to be related to code coverage which are unrelated to my changes. Any chance this gets an approval and merge? Would be nice to get this in for the next release.

[Sovietaced]

@Sovietaced It looks like it passed all the required tests, and the only failures seem to be related to code coverage which are unrelated to my changes. Any chance this gets an approval and merge? Would be nice to get this in for the next release.

I'm going to take a look at the unit test failure. codecov usually fails until all the actions run and then it passes

[Sovietaced]

I'm going to take a look at the unit test failure. codecov usually fails until all the actions run and then it passes

I re-ran the failed test and it passed. Not sure what happened.

I'm actually just a committer and although I can merge this I'd like to connect with the Flyte folks to see if I'm missing anything.