fix(JobAttachments): Ignore empty lists for job attachments #181
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 was the problem/requirement? (What/Why)
If customers have SHARED Storage Profiles configured for their Queue and are using Job Attachments, they can get into a state where they have no Job Attachments to upload. This hit an edge case where an empty
Attachments
object is passed to the CreateJob API, causing a submission error.What was the solution? (How)
The
S3AssetManager.prepare_assets_for_upload
function returns a AssetUploadGroup object that can contain a list of AssetRootGroups. These AssetRootGroups are what ultimately become theattachments.manifests
objects in the CreateJob API call. So if the list of AssetRootGroups in the AssetUploadGroup is empty, we know we don't have any Job Attachments, so we don't continue down any Job Attachments code paths, as there's no work to do.What is the impact of this change?
Customers submitting jobs with SHARED storage profiles configured with their Queue should be able to submit successfully without needing Job Attachments.
How was this change tested?
Invalid length for parameter attachments.manifests, value: 0, valid min length: 1"
Was this change documented?
N/A
Is this a breaking change?
No