Reference a non-existent CFN parameter in minInstancesInServiceParameters
#549
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
This is to allow testing of guardian/riff-raff#1383 whilst the `riff-raff.yaml` generator from GuCDK hasn't been updated.
akash1810
changed the title
minInstancesInServiceParameters
akash1810
changed the title
minInstancesInServiceParametersminInstancesInServiceParameters
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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?
This is to allow testing of guardian/riff-raff#1383 whilst the
riff-raff.yamlgenerator from GuCDK hasn't been updated.This
riff-raff.yamlis a stripped down version of the generated one, only uploading the application artifact to S3, and deploying the application CloudFormation stack.This is a test of behaviour when the
riff-raff.yamlfile references a CFN parameter that does not exist in the CFN template.How to test?
Deploy this branch; it should fail.
Note
This is existing behaviour.