added Fn::Transport to Resources.resources on validation schema #8337
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #8337 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 88.01% 88.01% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 249 249
Lines 9306 9305 -1
==========================================
- Hits 8191 8190 -1
Misses 1115 1115
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@zaldanaraul great thanks for that! Please see my comment, and let me know what you think
| @@ -796,6 +811,9 @@ class AwsProvider { | |||
| // See also https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSCloudFormation/latest/UserGuide/resources-section-structure.html | |||
| Resources: { | |||
| type: 'object', | |||
| properties: { | |||
| $ref: '#/definitions/awsCfTransform/properties', | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Have you tested that it works as intended?
If I see correctly it translates to:
Resources: {
type: 'object',
properties: {
type: 'object',
properties: {...}
},
...
}And that looks invalid (note that AJV unfortunately does not notify on unrecognized properties in Schema, it simply ignores them).
I think we don't have to introduce awsCfTransform definition (no reusabilty use case at this point), so we can fix it simply by putting definition inline
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It did work in my tests. In this case, because the JSON Pointer is to awscfTransform/properties and not just awscfTransform, it would translate to:
Resources: {
type: 'object',
properties: {
type: 'object',
properties:
'Fn::Transform': {...}
},
...
}However, if there is no reusability use case I'll just put the properties inline.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed, sorry, didn't read carefully that per path right object is pointed.
Anyway we usually do not generalize until there's a use case for it. Thanks for update!
Closes: #8300