feat: Move to GuCDK's policy to get the artifact #612
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Replace the YAML resource that allows the instance to download the artifact from S3 with a GuCDK construct. This has a secondary benefit where we follow the principle of least privilege as GuCDK tightly scopes the `s3:GetObject` permission.
jacobwinch
approved these changes
Jun 22, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Builds on #598.
What does this change?
Replace the YAML resource that allows the instance to download the artifact from S3 with a GuCDK construct.
This has a secondary benefit where we follow the principle of least privilege as GuCDK tightly scopes the
s3:GetObjectpermission.How to test
Perform a full deploy of this branch. If you can, then we can still get the correct files from S3 🎉 .
How can we measure success?
We move closer to a CDK only template and have tighter access policies.
Have we considered potential risks?
The AMIgo application code might require access to the bucket on a path different from
bucket/stack/stage/app/*. I can't see anything obvious to this effect though, so it should be ok.