Doesn't work, leaks.

[joeyhub]

Even when configured for local it tries to shoot out onto the internet...

{ UnknownEndpoint: Inaccessible host: `sqs.local.amazonaws.com'. This service may not be available in the `local' region.
    at Request.ENOTFOUND_ERROR (/opt/sqs-insight/node_modules/aws-sdk/lib/event_listeners.js:494:46)
    at Request.callListeners (/opt/sqs-insight/node_modules/aws-sdk/lib/sequential_executor.js:106:20)
    at Request.emit (/opt/sqs-insight/node_modules/aws-sdk/lib/sequential_executor.js:78:10)
    at Request.emit (/opt/sqs-insight/node_modules/aws-sdk/lib/request.js:683:14)
    at ClientRequest.error (/opt/sqs-insight/node_modules/aws-sdk/lib/event_listeners.js:333:22)
    at ClientRequest.<anonymous> (/opt/sqs-insight/node_modules/aws-sdk/lib/http/node.js:96:19)
    at emitOne (events.js:116:13)
    at ClientRequest.emit (events.js:211:7)
    at TLSSocket.socketErrorListener (_http_client.js:401:9)
    at emitOne (events.js:116:13)

Is using SQS insight really a good idea? It hasn't been touched since 2015.

[joeyhub]

Using extra hosts to bounce it back to local seems to help.

[jackbravo]

If you check the Dockerfile, it is not using the base insight-sqs repo, but a fork that is still being maintained: https://github.com/kobim/sqs-insight

https://github.com/roribio/alpine-sqs/blob/master/Dockerfile#L15

[joeyhub]

Thanks for the redirect! I'll follow the hot potato!

[jackbravo]

That said, even the maintained version is based on Angular 1 and other really old dependencies with security issues. DO NOT USE IN PRODUCTION :-p.

[joeyhub]

Realistically speaking AWS should be shunting this so good effort trying to fill in.

[jackbravo]

Why do you think that?

[joeyhub]

Some people pay AWS a lot but to get a local test set up that's good, quick and not pulling in some test AWS setup still having metred services is more difficult than it should, AWS should give you everything that you need. It's might not be popular to say but we all know Amazon kind of sucks other than having some monopoly of sorts. We all know they're good at business but we also all know they're not ethical. That can be alright but it pushes the limits. What's having the big green continue with purchase and checkout button also replaced with actually also buy our subscription services? Mate I just wanted one bar of soap. How did that end up with a monthly charge? Maybe I don't fall for this but my mother and father with their failing vision sometimes rely on force of habit. I'm looking through their bills and seeing this amazon stuff and I'm saying do you remember subscribing to that and they say no and they haven't even gotten dementia yet, they're sharp as a tack, better memory than mine, they just got duped by amazon, that's it, their elderly weakness was their trust.

AWS has some deficits. It's reached a point it can get away with anything and it maximises that to maximise profits. Not everyone minds some mutual give and take but they just want to take take take and it's really disgusting. Just walked in as a consultant for a small businesses. Drowning in AWS metered fees. What did I do? Reserve instances? Work out how things aren't on the same availability zone but sharing lots of traffic? Nah. Just switched them onto a couple of dedis dropping costs from several hundred K a year to some thousands a year then helped them hire a sysadmin to have on hand because what's 10k to 35k per year (depending on full time, etc or not) compared to AWS metered costs where the sky's the limit (you can go ten times more expensive easy, a hundred times isn't off the table, even a thousand times is plausible) plus the overhead of the complexity such as you log in and it's a splat of all their services making you jump through hoops to even see what you actually have. Could be great but it's not.

Here's the thing, it's not normal OSS, we're sinking A LOT into AWS so they should be able to give some decent SQS testing containers but instead we have to rely on some volunteers doing the best with what little they have to share which often is barely enough when AWS is rolling in it mate. Them setting up this stuff themselves is well within their reserves.

Let me put it this way. AWS charges some hundred K or more. I switch that over to more cost effective stuff costing 10% to 20% but also scaling much better. That are thousands, nay, tens of thousands of naive companies like that. Take just one. That's well between 50K and 100K being given to them like a charity from a single company. A very good salary even in places with high cost of living. Imagine them just paying one person with that surplus to work on stuff like this full time. That might be enough to bring people like my tentatively on board but instead my job is basically closing the hole in the wallet known as AWS which particularly and harshly effects medium to small businesses the most (also the majority of businesses even if not the majority of the wealth making it worse because they don't have money to throw away that's the bloody point of being a contender, to reach the point you do but you almost never reach that just throwing it all away from the get go). People are just like, take my money and run Amazon! It's horrible to see self harm on such a large scale.

Going back, lets say they spent that tiny surplus, one company's worth on hiring just one person full time for stuff like this. Can you imagine that? Bloody amazing aye? I bet I'd be left with nothing to complain about.

Point is, amazon should be paying people for this kind of work.