Fix schema validation of CloudFront distribution config

[jede]

Addresses: #8025 (this is a minor bugfix related to PR #8250)

I noticed some unsupported configuration format warnings that occurred after #8250 with CloudFront events and specifically using AllowedMethods, CachedMethods and ForwardedValues:

So I used the example given here to write a test that validates the config.

Any feedback is welcome!

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #8308 into master will decrease coverage by 0.14%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #8308      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.16%   88.02%   -0.15%     
==========================================
  Files         250      249       -1     
  Lines        9391     9312      -79     
==========================================
- Hits         8280     8197      -83     
- Misses       1111     1115       +4     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...ins/aws/package/compile/events/cloudFront/index.js	99.32% <ø> (ø)
...ins/aws/package/compile/events/alb/lib/validate.js	95.31% <0.00%> (-2.52%)	⬇️
lib/plugins/aws/invokeLocal/index.js	68.53% <0.00%> (-1.13%)	⬇️
...ib/plugins/aws/package/lib/generateCoreTemplate.js	95.12% <0.00%> (-0.34%)	⬇️
lib/plugins/aws/provider/awsProvider.js	93.04% <0.00%> (-0.15%)	⬇️
.../compile/events/apiGateway/lib/hack/updateStage.js	95.06% <0.00%> (-0.09%)	⬇️
lib/plugins/aws/package/lib/mergeIamTemplates.js	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ib/plugins/aws/package/compile/events/alb/index.js	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ib/plugins/aws/package/compile/events/sqs/index.js	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
lib/plugins/aws/lib/validateS3BucketName.js

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update e990c09...1d058b2. Read the comment docs.

[medikoo]

@jede great thanks for that! Indeed, there's an issue, and I have no idea how it got in, in this form.

Still, please see my comment, I think we can have it way simpler

[jede]

I made the changes you suggested, but let me know if the order thing matters, in that case I can just revert :)

[medikoo]

@jede sorry for confusion, but after your input, it's clear that what you proposed originally while more verbose, is definitely more correct.

[jede]

No worries! I reset it back to the original. Happy to contribute!

[medikoo]

@jede great thanks for update. It all looks good for AllowedMethods and CachedMethods but I've discovered some issues with ForwardedValues please see my comments

[jede]

Great! Fixed it and adjusted the test case.

[medikoo]

Thanks for comment @jede, as we discussed, it seems reasonable to recognize ForwardedValues.

Now when reviewing deeply it's schema, I've spotted few schema issues, and proposed one style improvement. Let me know

[jede]

Thanks for the suggestions! Makes it more coherent with the rest of the code. I went ahead and added type: 'array' for the values in AllowedMethods and CachedMethods as well.

[medikoo]

Thank you @jede, that looks great!