feature: eagerly fetch credentials when the ECS server starts #804
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
👋 I discovered the
--ecs-serverfeature today and love it!We use AWS SSO, which doesn't play nicely with the current
--ecs-serverbehavior of lazily retrieving and caching credentials after the first request. While the server waits for us to complete the SSO prompt in the browser, commands using the AWS SDK time out, exiting theaws-vaultsubshell . See #615 for a description of the issue.This PR retrieves and caches credentials eagerly at server start. This allows
aws-vaultto pause for manual prompts before running any commands in the subshell, guaranteeing that those commands will retrieve valid credentials from the ECS server.While this PR changes behavior, I'm not sure if any consumers rely on lazy fetching–if anything, it could be considered a bugfix, although the safest bet would be to consider it a breaking change.