Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

chore(release): v2.148.1 #30824

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jul 11, 2024
Merged

chore(release): v2.148.1 #30824

merged 4 commits into from
Jul 11, 2024

Conversation

moelasmar
Copy link
Contributor

See CHANGELOG

GavinZZ and others added 2 commits July 10, 2024 18:58
… defining authorization type in method or root api (#30822)

### Issue # (if applicable)

Closes #30444

### Reason for this change

The original PR caused a breaking change, we can't rollback because it
was released in v2.142.0 and it fixes customers issues (partially).
Simply doing a revert will be breaking for those customers again.

### Description of changes

Identified the root cause and we should use `AuthorizationType` instead
of `AuthorizationTypeOption`. `AuthorizationType` defaults to find the
authorization type from the authorizer, falling back to use the auth
type defined in the `Method` construct's options property and falling
back to `None`.

`AuthorizationTypeOptions` on the other hand tries to find the auth type
from `Method` construct's options property which can be None because
it's optional.

### Description of how you validated changes

New unit tests covering the changes and new integration tests covering
it.

### Checklist
- [ ] My code adheres to the [CONTRIBUTING
GUIDE](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md) and
[DESIGN
GUIDELINES](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/docs/DESIGN_GUIDELINES.md)

----

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

---------

Co-authored-by: mergify[bot] <37929162+mergify[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
@moelasmar moelasmar added the pr/no-squash This PR should be merged instead of squash-merging it label Jul 11, 2024
@aws-cdk-automation aws-cdk-automation requested a review from a team July 11, 2024 02:14
@github-actions github-actions bot added the p2 label Jul 11, 2024
@mergify mergify bot added the contribution/core This is a PR that came from AWS. label Jul 11, 2024
@aws-cdk-automation
Copy link
Collaborator

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • CodeBuild project: AutoBuildv2Project1C6BFA3F-wQm2hXv2jqQv
  • Commit ID: 776bf03
  • Result: SUCCEEDED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

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

Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Jul 11, 2024

Thank you for contributing! Your pull request will be automatically updated and merged without squashing (do not update manually, and be sure to allow changes to be pushed to your fork).

@mergify mergify bot merged commit 283525d into v2-release Jul 11, 2024
13 of 14 checks passed
@mergify mergify bot deleted the patch/v2.148.1 branch July 11, 2024 02:49
@aws-cdk-automation
Copy link
Collaborator

Comments on closed issues and PRs are hard for our team to see. If you need help, please open a new issue that references this one.

@aws aws locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jul 25, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
contribution/core This is a PR that came from AWS. p2 pr/no-squash This PR should be merged instead of squash-merging it
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants