add support for route53 health check #259

moadibfr · 2021-02-15T13:56:40Z

Q	A
🐛 Bug fix?	no
🚀 New feature?	yes
⚠ Deprecations?	no
❌ BC Break	no
🔗 Related issues	#211
❓ Documentation	yes

Description

add support for route53 health check

codecov · 2021-02-15T13:59:02Z

Codecov Report

Merging #259 (f18ce79) into main (cfcde7f) will increase coverage by 0.04%.
The diff coverage is 72.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #259      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   69.21%   69.25%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         229      234       +5     
  Lines        5068     5143      +75     
==========================================
+ Hits         3508     3562      +54     
- Misses       1279     1295      +16     
- Partials      281      286       +5

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pkg/remote/aws/init.go	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
pkg/remote/aws/route53_health_check_supplier.go	`58.33% <58.33%> (ø)`
pkg/remote/aws/repository/route53_repository.go	`63.63% <63.63%> (ø)`
.../deserializer/route53_health_check_deserializer.go	`64.28% <64.28%> (ø)`
pkg/resource/aws/aws_route53_health_check_ext.go	`95.45% <95.45%> (ø)`
pkg/iac/deserializers.go	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
pkg/resource/aws/aws_route53_health_check.go	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
... and 2 more

wbeuil · 2021-02-15T15:37:45Z

doc/cmd/scan/supported_resources/aws.md

-                "dynamodb:DescribeContinuousBackups"
+                "dynamodb:DescribeContinuousBackups",
+                "route53:ListHealthChecks",
+                "route53:GetHealthCheck"


Can we try to keep these permissions in order and put the two new route53 policies just next to the others. Thanks :)

Ok I'll group them by service

wbeuil · 2021-02-15T15:38:05Z

go.sum

@@ -126,6 +126,7 @@ github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go v1.30.12/go.mod h1:5zCpMtNQVjRREroY7sYe8lOMRSxkhG6MZve
 github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go v1.31.9/go.mod h1:5zCpMtNQVjRREroY7sYe8lOMRSxkhG6MZveU8YkpAk0=
 github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go v1.34.2 h1:9vCknCdTAmmV4ht7lPuda7aJXzllXwEQyCMZKJHjBrM=
 github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go v1.34.2/go.mod h1:5zCpMtNQVjRREroY7sYe8lOMRSxkhG6MZveU8YkpAk0=
+github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go v1.37.8 h1:9kywcbuz6vQuTf+FD+U7FshafrHzmqUCjgAEiLuIJ8U=


Is this mandatory ?

hmm not sure I'll try without that

wbeuil · 2021-02-15T15:42:01Z

pkg/remote/aws/route53_health_check_supplier_test.go

+		},
+		{
+			test:    "cannot list health check",
+			dirName: "route53_health_check_list_error",


Do we want to keep 2 empty results since the first test has the same result ?

We are testing error behavior there it's not the same think that testing no results are returned from AWS side

From the product point of view it is indeed not the same, but as of the mocked golden file reader we return a slice of []resource.Resource which here is an empty array.

I can easily see a future where we could want to test other errors and where with this logic the number of useless results can only increase exponentially.

I don't get your point, we need this test to test theses lines of code :

You could test this line like this:

{ test: "cannot list health check", dirName: "route53_health_check_empty", mocks: func(client *mocks.Route53Repository) { client.On("ListAllHealthChecks").Return(nil, awserr.NewRequestFailure(nil, 403, "")) }, err: remoteerror.NewResourceEnumerationError(awserr.NewRequestFailure(nil, 403, ""), resourceaws.AwsRoute53HealthCheckResourceType), }

Look at the dirName here. I reused the one with empty results so that we don't need to create another empty results but with different naming. I did it like that in SQS.

May I suggest that we stop at the error testing if it fail so we use no folder at all for error testing ? it's not really useful to test the list values and it's not mandatory that this return an empty list.

ok it cannot work as we need the schema. I think we should find a way to use only one schema if we want to save space I'm not a really big fan of generating golden file for a test and using them for another...

I'm good with that, we should find a way to reuse schema

Ok then let's break it into 2 PRs, this one and mine on cloudfront will still have this kind of different folder with its own results and schema. Another PR will deal with a new architecture where we use only one schema per resource. Are you ok with that ?

for now i reused empty test folder like you asked, But yeah we should do a dedicated pr to refactor this

eliecharra

Maybe this is not the right place to rename this file

pkg/remote/aws/test/route53_health_check_multiple/results.golden.json

pkg/resource/aws/aws_route53_health_check_test.go

pkg/resource/aws/aws_route53_health_check_ext_test.go

eliecharra

⚠️ You have removed pkg/resource/aws/aws_security_group_rule_test.go

pkg/remote/aws/route53_health_check_supplier_test.go

wbeuil · 2021-02-16T16:19:09Z

pkg/remote/aws/route53_health_check_supplier_test.go

+			fakeClient := mocks.Route53Repository{}
+			c.mocks(&fakeClient)
+			provider := testmocks.NewMockedGoldenTFProvider(c.dirName, providerLibrary.Provider(terraform.AWS), shouldUpdate)
+			SNSTopicDeserializer := awsdeserializer.NewRoute53HealthCheckDeserializer()


Can you just change here the naming of the variable

moadibfr requested a review from a team as a code owner February 15, 2021 13:56

wbeuil suggested changes Feb 15, 2021

View reviewed changes

eliecharra suggested changes Feb 15, 2021

View reviewed changes

moadibfr force-pushed the fea/route53_health_check branch 4 times, most recently from 69eadc0 to 9e32da4 Compare February 15, 2021 20:12

moadibfr requested review from eliecharra and wbeuil February 16, 2021 09:52

moadibfr force-pushed the fea/route53_health_check branch from 9e32da4 to bef20d1 Compare February 16, 2021 09:53

eliecharra suggested changes Feb 16, 2021

View reviewed changes

pkg/remote/aws/route53_health_check_supplier_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

moadibfr force-pushed the fea/route53_health_check branch from bef20d1 to e191d53 Compare February 16, 2021 15:28

moadibfr requested a review from eliecharra February 16, 2021 15:29

wbeuil reviewed Feb 16, 2021

View reviewed changes

eliecharra previously approved these changes Feb 16, 2021

View reviewed changes

moadibfr dismissed eliecharra’s stale review via 5e14638 February 16, 2021 17:34

moadibfr force-pushed the fea/route53_health_check branch 2 times, most recently from 5e14638 to 4b10221 Compare February 16, 2021 17:51

moadibfr requested a review from wbeuil February 16, 2021 17:51

add support for route53 health check

f18ce79

moadibfr force-pushed the fea/route53_health_check branch from 4b10221 to f18ce79 Compare February 16, 2021 17:54

eliecharra added the kind/enhancement New feature or improvement label Feb 16, 2021

eliecharra approved these changes Feb 16, 2021

View reviewed changes

wbeuil approved these changes Feb 17, 2021

View reviewed changes

moadibfr merged commit 0410d8b into main Feb 17, 2021

moadibfr deleted the fea/route53_health_check branch February 17, 2021 09:02

eliecharra linked an issue Feb 18, 2021 that may be closed by this pull request

Add support for aws_route53_health_check #211

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

add support for route53 health check #259

add support for route53 health check #259

moadibfr commented Feb 15, 2021

codecov bot commented Feb 15, 2021 •

edited

Loading

wbeuil Feb 15, 2021

moadibfr Feb 15, 2021

wbeuil Feb 15, 2021

moadibfr Feb 15, 2021

wbeuil Feb 15, 2021 •

edited

Loading

eliecharra Feb 15, 2021 •

edited

Loading

wbeuil Feb 15, 2021 •

edited

Loading

eliecharra Feb 15, 2021

wbeuil Feb 15, 2021

moadibfr Feb 15, 2021

moadibfr Feb 15, 2021

eliecharra Feb 16, 2021

wbeuil Feb 16, 2021

moadibfr Feb 16, 2021

eliecharra left a comment

eliecharra left a comment

wbeuil Feb 16, 2021

moadibfr Feb 16, 2021

add support for route53 health check #259

add support for route53 health check #259

Conversation

moadibfr commented Feb 15, 2021

Description

codecov bot commented Feb 15, 2021 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

wbeuil Feb 15, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

eliecharra Feb 15, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

wbeuil Feb 15, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

eliecharra left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

eliecharra left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

codecov bot commented Feb 15, 2021 •

edited

Loading

wbeuil Feb 15, 2021 •

edited

Loading

eliecharra Feb 15, 2021 •

edited

Loading

wbeuil Feb 15, 2021 •

edited

Loading