feat(route53): added L2 construct for Route53's health checks #30739

wladyslawczyzewski · 2024-07-02T21:06:37Z

Issue # (if applicable)

Part of #9481
Another PR for this ticket #30664

Reason for this change

Added L2 construct for AWS::Route53::HealthCheck resource

Description of changes

The changes only introduces the L2 construct for Route53 health check resources. Except the L2 construct itself, I added basic validations for the input props.

Description of how you validated changes

unit tests
integration tests

Checklist

My code adheres to the CONTRIBUTING GUIDE and DESIGN GUIDELINES

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license

nmussy

Apologies for the number of requested changes, but it's a really good first pass. I would just be mindful of copy-pasting CloudFormation docs for the property JSDocs, some of them don't make as much sense in the context of the CDK 👍

nmussy · 2024-07-04T07:20:19Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/lib/health-check.ts

+        alarmIdentifier: props.alarmIdentifier,
+        childHealthChecks: props.childHealthChecks,
+        enableSni: props.enableSNI,
+        failureThreshold: props.failureThreshold ?? 3,


Why have a default value for failureThreshold? CloudFormation doesn't have a default value, and doesn't even require one, see docs

@nmussy the documentation states "If you don't specify a value for FailureThreshold, the default value is three health checks."

My main issue is that it's an optional Cfn parameter, and by having a default value here you are preventing CDK users from being able to pass a null-ish value. I'll let the maintainer weigh in here, I don't think it's a huge issue either way

nmussy · 2024-07-04T07:21:17Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/lib/health-check.ts

+        measureLatency: props.measureLatency,
+        port: props.port,
+        regions: props.regions,
+        requestInterval: (props.requestInterval && props.requestInterval.toSeconds()) ?? 30,


I would just let CloudFormation set its default value, no need for the CDK to do it, see docs

Suggested change

requestInterval: (props.requestInterval && props.requestInterval.toSeconds()) ?? 30,

requestInterval: props.requestInterval?.toSeconds(),

@nmussy according to design guidelines in some cases there's most certainly the default value even if the CF docs doesn't specify the one. In this case, the default value is 30 seconds because the CF docs states it's a default value for this prop when other doesn't specified and because the design guidelines mention the best when how to determine the default value for the prop:

A good way to determine what's the right sensible default is to refer to the AWS Console resource creation experience. In many cases, there will be alignment.

The console sets the default value for the health check to 30 seconds.

NB. changed the implementation to use optional chaining operator

See #30739 (comment)

nmussy · 2024-07-04T07:23:14Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/lib/health-check.ts

+function validateIpAddress(props: HealthCheckProps) {
+  if (props.ipAddress === undefined) {
+    return;
+  }
+
+  if (
+    !new RegExp(
+      '^((([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|1[0-9]{2}|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5]).){3}([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|1[0-9]{2}|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5]))$|^(([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:){7,7}[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}|([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:){1,7}:|([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:){1,6}:[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}|([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:){1,5}(:[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}){1,2}|([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:){1,4}(:[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}){1,3}|([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:){1,3}(:[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}){1,4}|([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:){1,2}(:[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}){1,5}|[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:((:[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}){1,6})|:((:[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}){1,7}|:)|fe80:(:[0-9a-fA-F]{0,4}){0,4}%[0-9a-zA-Z]{1,}|::(ffff(:0{1,4}){0,1}:){0,1}((25[0-5]|(2[0-4]|1{0,1}[0-9]){0,1}[0-9]).){3,3}(25[0-5]|(2[0-4]|1{0,1}[0-9]){0,1}[0-9])|([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:){1,4}:((25[0-5]|(2[0-4]|1{0,1}[0-9]){0,1}[0-9]).){3,3}(25[0-5]|(2[0-4]|1{0,1}[0-9]){0,1}[0-9]))$',
+    ).test(props.ipAddress)
+  ) {
+    throw new Error('IpAddress must be a valid IPv4 or IPv6 address');
+  }
+}


Seems a bit overkill, especially given how complex the RegExp is. I would remove this function and let CloudFormation validate it

@nmussy this is the regex from the official CF documentation, imho it's better to fail on synthesize phase rather than on deployment phase

Again, I'll leave it up to the maintainer review

nmussy · 2024-07-04T07:26:56Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/lib/health-check.ts

+function validateProperties(props: HealthCheckProps) {
+  switch (props.type) {
+    case HealthCheckType.HTTP: {
+      ruleAlarmIdentifierIsNotAllowed(props);


I would probably refactor this switch, given how many types and functions there are. You already have a common signature, so you can use a Record to map out the functions for each type, something like:

const rules: Record<HealthCheckType, (props: HealthCheckProps) => void> = { [HealthCheckType.HTTP]: [ruleAlarmIdentifierIsNotAllowed, ruleEnableSNIIsNotAllowed, ...], // ... ]; function validateProperties(props: HealthCheckProps) { for (const rule of rules[props.type]) rule(props);

@nmussy thanks for this advice – reimplemented this as you suggested ✅

nmussy · 2024-07-04T07:28:03Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/lib/health-check.ts

+    default:
+      throw new Error(`Unsupported health check type: ${props.type}`);


Switching to a map would also remove the need for this exception, since the rules type will require that all possible HealthCheckType values are covered

@nmussy removed the switch in favour of rules as you suggested ✅

nmussy · 2024-07-04T07:50:38Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/lib/health-check.ts

+  /**
+   * Specify whether you want Amazon Route 53 to invert the status of a health check, so a health check that would normally be considered unhealthy is considered healthy, and vice versa.
+   *
+   * @default - not configured


Suggested change

* @default - not configured

* @default false

@nmussy changed the default value to false

See comment about setting the default value: #30739 (comment)

nmussy · 2024-07-04T07:51:25Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/lib/health-check.ts

+  /**
+   * Specify whether you want Amazon Route 53 to measure the latency between health checkers in multiple AWS regions and your endpoint, and to display CloudWatch latency graphs on the Health Checks page in the Route 53 console.
+   *
+   * @default - not configured


Again, not explicitly said, but I'm going to assume the default is false

@nmussy changed the default value to false. thanks for this!

See comment about setting the default value: #30739 (comment)

nmussy · 2024-07-04T07:52:14Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/lib/health-check.ts

+  readonly alarmIdentifier?: AlarmIdentifier;
+
+  /**
+   * A complex type that contains one ChildHealthCheck element for each health check that you want to associate with a CALCULATED health check.


"Complex types" don't make a ton of sense in the CDK, this is just an array

@nmussy updated the docstring, thanks for flagging this

nmussy · 2024-07-04T07:55:07Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/lib/health-check.ts

+   * A complex type that contains one Region element for each region from which you want Amazon Route 53 health checkers to check the specified endpoint.
+   *
+   * @default - not configured


The default value is documented in the Cfn docs. Also, "complex type" and "Region element" sound a bit off here. I assume it's just "an array of region identifiers", but you can add this to your integration tests to make sure

Suggested change

* A complex type that contains one Region element for each region from which you want Amazon Route 53 health checkers to check the specified endpoint.

*

* @default - not configured

* An array of region identifiers from which you want Amazon Route 53 health checkers to check the specified endpoint.

*

* @default - performs checks from all of the regions that are listed under Valid Values.

@nmussy thanks for this, I have refactored this part of the construct to make it strong-typed and added some validations, please check It out ✅

Thanks for the doc update, I've added some comments about the typing and validation though:
https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/pull/30739/files#r1671746172
https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/pull/30739/files#r1671739388

nmussy · 2024-07-04T07:56:05Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/lib/health-check.ts

+   * The number of seconds between the time that Amazon Route 53 gets a response from your endpoint and the time that it sends the next health check request. Each Route 53 health checker makes requests at this interval.
+   *
+   * @default 30


"30" is not a valid Duration, and we don't ask CDK users for a number of seconds here, just a duration

Suggested change

* The number of seconds between the time that Amazon Route 53 gets a response from your endpoint and the time that it sends the next health check request. Each Route 53 health checker makes requests at this interval.

*

* @default 30

* The duration between the time that Amazon Route 53 gets a response from your endpoint and the time that it sends the next health check request. Each Route 53 health checker makes requests at this interval.

*

* @default Duration.seconds(30)

@nmussy updated the docstring for this property, please check it

nmussy · 2024-07-04T08:32:42Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/test/record-set.test.ts

+    // THEN
+    Template.fromStack(stack).hasResourceProperties('AWS::Route53::RecordSet', {


I would also add an assertion for a AWS::Route53::HealthCheck

@nmussy thanks for this – added ✅

nmussy · 2024-07-04T08:33:49Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/test/health-check.test.ts

+import { HealthCheck, HealthCheckType } from '../lib';
+
+describe('health check', () => {
+  test('resolves routing control arn', () => {


I would also add tests to make sure all possible properties are properly mapped to their corresponding HealthCheckConfig keys

@nmussy added more unit tests, please check it out ✅

nmussy · 2024-07-04T08:37:03Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/test/record-set.test.ts

@@ -188,6 +188,36 @@ describe('record set', () => {
    });
  });

+  test('A record with health check', () => {


I would also add a test to make sure that imported health checks can be properly mapped to Record sets

@nmussy added additional test for that test case ✅

few validation changes use IHeatlCheck instead of string for `childHealthChecks` props

integration test

also updated the unit tests and integration tests for this change

wladyslawczyzewski

hi @nmussy , thanks for you review – I applied some changes according to your comments, could you please review them? thanks in advance!

wladyslawczyzewski · 2024-07-07T10:36:37Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/lib/health-check.ts

+        alarmIdentifier: props.alarmIdentifier,
+        childHealthChecks: props.childHealthChecks,
+        enableSni: props.enableSNI,
+        failureThreshold: props.failureThreshold ?? 3,


@nmussy the documentation states "If you don't specify a value for FailureThreshold, the default value is three health checks."

wladyslawczyzewski · 2024-07-07T10:52:32Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/lib/health-check.ts

+        measureLatency: props.measureLatency,
+        port: props.port,
+        regions: props.regions,
+        requestInterval: (props.requestInterval && props.requestInterval.toSeconds()) ?? 30,


@nmussy according to design guidelines in some cases there's most certainly the default value even if the CF docs doesn't specify the one. In this case, the default value is 30 seconds because the CF docs states it's a default value for this prop when other doesn't specified and because the design guidelines mention the best when how to determine the default value for the prop:

A good way to determine what's the right sensible default is to refer to the AWS Console resource creation experience. In many cases, there will be alignment.

The console sets the default value for the health check to 30 seconds.

wladyslawczyzewski · 2024-07-07T10:54:12Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/lib/health-check.ts

+        measureLatency: props.measureLatency,
+        port: props.port,
+        regions: props.regions,
+        requestInterval: (props.requestInterval && props.requestInterval.toSeconds()) ?? 30,


NB. changed the implementation to use optional chaining operator

wladyslawczyzewski · 2024-07-07T10:56:13Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/lib/health-check.ts

+  if (props.searchString === null || props.searchString === undefined) {
+    throw new Error(`SearchString is required for health check type: ${props.type}`);
+  }
+
+  if (props.searchString.length === 0 || props.searchString.length > 255) {


@nmussy not providing the value (undefined or null) is not the same as providing the empty value (''), the error messages clearly states that in one case the value is required and that the length of the value should be between 1 and 255 in another.

wladyslawczyzewski · 2024-07-07T10:57:49Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/lib/health-check.ts

+function validateIpAddress(props: HealthCheckProps) {
+  if (props.ipAddress === undefined) {
+    return;
+  }
+
+  if (
+    !new RegExp(
+      '^((([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|1[0-9]{2}|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5]).){3}([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|1[0-9]{2}|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5]))$|^(([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:){7,7}[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}|([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:){1,7}:|([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:){1,6}:[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}|([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:){1,5}(:[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}){1,2}|([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:){1,4}(:[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}){1,3}|([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:){1,3}(:[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}){1,4}|([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:){1,2}(:[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}){1,5}|[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:((:[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}){1,6})|:((:[0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}){1,7}|:)|fe80:(:[0-9a-fA-F]{0,4}){0,4}%[0-9a-zA-Z]{1,}|::(ffff(:0{1,4}){0,1}:){0,1}((25[0-5]|(2[0-4]|1{0,1}[0-9]){0,1}[0-9]).){3,3}(25[0-5]|(2[0-4]|1{0,1}[0-9]){0,1}[0-9])|([0-9a-fA-F]{1,4}:){1,4}:((25[0-5]|(2[0-4]|1{0,1}[0-9]){0,1}[0-9]).){3,3}(25[0-5]|(2[0-4]|1{0,1}[0-9]){0,1}[0-9]))$',
+    ).test(props.ipAddress)
+  ) {
+    throw new Error('IpAddress must be a valid IPv4 or IPv6 address');
+  }
+}


@nmussy this is the regex from the official CF documentation, imho it's better to fail on synthesize phase rather than on deployment phase

wladyslawczyzewski · 2024-07-08T07:22:45Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/README.md

@@ -220,6 +220,37 @@ Constructs are available for A, AAAA, CAA, CNAME, MX, NS, SRV and TXT records.
 Use the `CaaAmazonRecord` construct to easily restrict certificate authorities
 allowed to issue certificates for a domain to Amazon only.

+### Health Checks
+
+You can associate health checks with records:


@nmussy thanks for this – updated the README file with the description of what the health checks are and how to use them with the example.

wladyslawczyzewski · 2024-07-08T07:23:14Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/README.md

+});
+```
+
+Possible values for `type` are `HTTP`, `HTTPS`, `TCP`, `CLOUDWATCH_METRIC`, `CALCULATED` and `RECOVERY_CONTROL`.


@nmussy update the docs to redirect users to CF docs ✅

wladyslawczyzewski · 2024-07-08T09:15:25Z

packages/@aws-cdk-testing/framework-integ/test/aws-route53/test/integ.health-check.ts

+new IntegTest(app, 'integ-test', {
+  testCases: [stack],
+  diffAssets: true,
+  enableLookups: true,
+});


@nmussy updated the integration tests, please check it out ✅

wladyslawczyzewski · 2024-07-08T10:01:59Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/test/health-check.test.ts

+import { HealthCheck, HealthCheckType } from '../lib';
+
+describe('health check', () => {
+  test('resolves routing control arn', () => {


@nmussy added more unit tests, please check it out ✅

wladyslawczyzewski · 2024-07-08T12:34:24Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/lib/health-check.ts

+   * A complex type that contains one Region element for each region from which you want Amazon Route 53 health checkers to check the specified endpoint.
+   *
+   * @default - not configured


@nmussy thanks for this, I have refactored this part of the construct to make it strong-typed and added some validations, please check It out ✅

nmussy · 2024-07-10T07:13:29Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/lib/health-check.ts

+    case HealthCheckType.RECOVERY_CONTROL:
+      return undefined;
+    default:
+      return VALID_REGIONS;


This will be a pain to maintain in the future when new regions are added to this list, when we can just let Cfn set all the valid regions by itself

nmussy · 2024-07-10T07:18:52Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/lib/health-check.ts

+  /**
+   * An array of region identifiers that you want Amazon Route 53 health checkers to check the health of the endpoint from.
+   *
+   * Valid values are: 'us-east-1', 'us-west-1', 'us-west-2', 'eu-west-1', 'ap-southeast-1', 'ap-southeast-2', 'ap-northeast-1', 'sa-east-1'
+   * @default - if the type is CALCULATED, CLOUDWATCH_METRIC, or RECOVERY_CONTROL, this property is not configured.
+   * - otherwise, the default value is all valid regions: 'us-east-1', 'us-west-1', 'us-west-2', 'eu-west-1', 'ap-southeast-1', 'ap-southeast-2', 'ap-northeast-1', 'sa-east-1'
+   */
+  readonly regions?: ('us-east-1' | 'us-west-1' | 'us-west-2' | 'eu-west-1' | 'ap-southeast-1' | 'ap-southeast-2' | 'ap-northeast-1' | 'sa-east-1')[];


I have the same maintainability concerns for this JSDoc and this type, I would just revert this type to a string[] and add a link to the Cfn documentation.

Just as an FYI, you could have used a const assertion to derive this type from the VALID_REGIONS array, see this example Playground

nmussy

Thanks for the changes, I had a few more comments

responsibility of validation to CloudFormation

wladyslawczyzewski · 2024-07-11T07:44:56Z

hi @nmussy , thanks for you review!

I made the regions weak-typed string[] property and as result passing all the validation responsibility to CloudFormation itself, however, I think having this prop strong-typed will be better option even if this will require more maintainer work in the future – not all AWS' regions are used for health checks, therefore user may provide the wrong value and will get the error only on deployment phase.

On the default values stuff – you're having a valid points why to not provide default values in the CDK codebase, however, each of that properties have implicit default values, imho, it's better to let users know what the default value is and if they indeed want to have the resource configured differently, they will need to provide their configuration explicitly in the code rather then relying on CloudFormation hidden decisions.

I pushed few changes according to your last review, could you please take a look and let me know if you see anything else that could be improved?

nmussy

LGTM, I'll let the maintainer make a decision regarding the default values. I'm also not sure using weight: 0 is a great example, see comment

nmussy · 2024-08-06T08:38:23Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/README.md

+new route53.ARecord(this, 'ARecord2', {
+  zone: myZone,
+  target: route53.RecordTarget.fromIpAddresses('5.6.7.8'),
+  weight: 0,


I'm not sure using a zero weight here is the best example, it's a pretty complex behavior with a few pitfalls, see Weight and How Amazon Route 53 chooses records when health checking is configured

Suggested change

weight: 0,

weight: 50,

shikha372 · 2024-10-01T18:01:55Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/lib/health-check.ts

+  }
+}
+
+const validationRules: Record<HealthCheckType, ((props: HealthCheckProps) => void)[]> = {


instead of having all these functions to validate these scenarios, can we include something like a enum based properties or class to define these props, i think one of the design principles we follow is to prevent many check cases.

The fewer “if statements” the better.

sorry @shikha372 could you please explain this further?

referring to all the validation functions defined with each healthcheck type eg.

function ruleAlarmIdentifierIsNotAllowed(props: HealthCheckProps) { if (props.alarmIdentifier) { throw new Error(`AlarmIdentifier is not supported for health check type: ${props.type}`); } }

instead of validating these checks with if-else, can we introduce a enum type class or method which will allow users to set only the required fields possible under a healthcheck, let me know if you think this is not feasible

shikha372 · 2024-10-01T18:03:18Z

packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-route53/README.md

+});
+```
+
+See the [Route 53 Health Checks documentation](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSCloudFormation/latest/UserGuide/aws-properties-route53-healthcheck-healthcheckconfig.html#cfn-route53-healthcheck-healthcheckconfig-type) for possible types of health checks.


I would suggest adding these documentation links upward so that its easier to get the overview before looking at the implementation in CDK

@shikha372 moved this link to the top of the Health Checks section

codecov · 2024-11-25T08:46:47Z

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 77.17%. Comparing base (d1b07d9) to head (ce26541).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #30739   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   77.17%   77.17%           
=======================================
  Files         105      105           
  Lines        7169     7169           
  Branches     1315     1315           
=======================================
  Hits         5533     5533           
  Misses       1455     1455           
  Partials      181      181

Flag	Coverage Δ
suite.unit	`77.17% <ø> (ø)`

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components	Coverage Δ
packages/aws-cdk	`77.17% <ø> (ø)`

---- 🚨 Try these New Features:

Flaky Tests Detection - Detect and resolve failed and flaky tests
JS Bundle Analysis - Avoid shipping oversized bundles

aws-cdk-automation · 2024-11-25T09:06:38Z

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

CodeBuild project: AutoBuildv2Project1C6BFA3F-wQm2hXv2jqQv
Commit ID: ce26541
Result: SUCCEEDED
Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

feat(route53): added L2 construct for Route53's health checks

dc4d0e0

aws-cdk-automation requested a review from a team July 2, 2024 21:06

github-actions bot added p2 beginning-contributor [Pilot] contributed between 0-2 PRs to the CDK labels Jul 2, 2024

wladyslawczyzewski mentioned this pull request Jul 2, 2024

feat(route53): added EvaluateTargetHealth to Route53 Alias targets (#9481) #30664

Open

1 task

wladyslawczyzewski and others added 2 commits July 2, 2024 23:21

feat(route53): fix identation

33d32f8

Merge branch 'main' into route53_health_checks

0742dcd

aws-cdk-automation added the pr/needs-community-review This PR needs a review from a Trusted Community Member or Core Team Member. label Jul 3, 2024

nmussy suggested changes Jul 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

aws-cdk-automation removed the pr/needs-community-review This PR needs a review from a Trusted Community Member or Core Team Member. label Jul 4, 2024

nmussy reviewed Jul 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Jul 8, 2024

Weekly PR metrics report #30783

Closed

wladyslawczyzewski added 8 commits July 8, 2024 14:36

feat(route53): updates the default values for the props

d499a30

few validation changes use IHeatlCheck instead of string for `childHealthChecks` props

feat(route53): code review fix

7335014

feat(route53): code review fixes

367f771

feat(route53): code review fix

cd231a6

feat(route53): update README file

0e28b64

feat(route53): added assertions to check the created resources in

9b8895b

integration test

feat(route53): more unit tests to cover the mappings

0d51b27

feat(route53): regions property of health check now has default value

18eb975

also updated the unit tests and integration tests for this change

wladyslawczyzewski commented Jul 8, 2024

View reviewed changes

wladyslawczyzewski requested a review from nmussy July 8, 2024 13:14

nmussy reviewed Jul 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

nmussy suggested changes Jul 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

wladyslawczyzewski added 3 commits July 11, 2024 07:40

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into route53_health_checks

0c69a22

feat(route53): make regions property weak typed and pass the

16ed7fe

responsibility of validation to CloudFormation

feat(route53): change validation rule for SearchString prop

dfb7a1d

wladyslawczyzewski requested a review from nmussy July 11, 2024 07:45

wladyslawczyzewski added 3 commits July 17, 2024 09:51

Merge branch 'main' into route53_health_checks

988d831

Merge branch 'main' into route53_health_checks

97cd816

Merge branch 'main' into route53_health_checks

ae2936a

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Aug 1, 2024

Monthly PR metrics report #30999

Closed

wladyslawczyzewski added 2 commits August 2, 2024 14:36

Merge branch 'main' into route53_health_checks

170f439

Merge branch 'main' into route53_health_checks

8ef52a9

nmussy approved these changes Aug 6, 2024

View reviewed changes

aws-cdk-automation added the pr/needs-maintainer-review This PR needs a review from a Core Team Member label Aug 6, 2024

lukepafford mentioned this pull request Sep 2, 2024

feat(route53): new Route53 CrossAccountRecordSet construct #31281

Closed

shikha372 self-assigned this Sep 24, 2024

shikha372 reviewed Oct 1, 2024

View reviewed changes

wolverian mentioned this pull request Oct 9, 2024

Add Slack alarm for failing Route 53 health checks Opetushallitus/koto-rekisteri#180

Closed

wladyslawczyzewski and others added 2 commits October 25, 2024 12:03

Merge branch 'main' into route53_health_checks

0de62d5

chore(route53): readme update

a0fe20f

wladyslawczyzewski requested a review from shikha372 November 14, 2024 11:10

Merge branch 'main' into route53_health_checks

ce26541

	requestInterval: (props.requestInterval && props.requestInterval.toSeconds()) ?? 30,
	requestInterval: props.requestInterval?.toSeconds(),

		default:
		throw new Error(`Unsupported health check type: ${props.type}`);

		// THEN
		Template.fromStack(stack).hasResourceProperties('AWS::Route53::RecordSet', {

feat(route53): added L2 construct for Route53's health checks #30739

Are you sure you want to change the base?

feat(route53): added L2 construct for Route53's health checks #30739

Conversation

wladyslawczyzewski commented Jul 2, 2024

Issue # (if applicable)

Reason for this change

Description of changes

Description of how you validated changes

Checklist

nmussy left a 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

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

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

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nmussy Jul 4, 2024 • 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

wladyslawczyzewski left a 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

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

nmussy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

wladyslawczyzewski commented Jul 11, 2024

nmussy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shikha372 Oct 1, 2024 • 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

codecov bot commented Nov 25, 2024 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

aws-cdk-automation commented Nov 25, 2024

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

nmussy Jul 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading

shikha372 Oct 1, 2024 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Nov 25, 2024 •

edited

Loading