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

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 78.67%. Comparing base (625c431) to head (c549266).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #30739      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   78.66%   78.67%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         107      107              
  Lines        7237     7237              
  Branches     1329     1329              
==========================================
+ Hits         5693     5694       +1     
+ Misses       1358     1357       -1     
  Partials      186      186

Flag	Coverage Δ
suite.unit	`78.67% <ø> (+0.01%)`	⬆️

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

Components	Coverage Δ
packages/aws-cdk	`78.67% <ø> (+0.01%)`	⬆️

GavinZZ

Hi sorry for keep you waiting on this PR. It's great work and it's a lot of work done and I'll try to help you to get this merged ASAP.

Left some comments to get your thoughts.

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

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

…alidations

…3_health_checks

Pull request has been modified.

Co-authored-by: GZ <[email protected]>

wladyslawczyzewski · 2024-12-06T20:43:33Z

hi @GavinZZ , could you please re-review the PR – I've deleted the props validation piece as it was too opinionated, I prefer to have the validation to be in synthesis phase instead deployment as this reduces the feedback time by a lot, but I also see the arguments against this.

GavinZZ · 2024-12-09T19:53:29Z

hi @GavinZZ , could you please re-review the PR – I've deleted the props validation piece as it was too opinionated, I prefer to have the validation to be in synthesis phase instead deployment as this reduces the feedback time by a lot, but I also see the arguments against this.

IMO I am usually in favour of synthesis validation rather than deployment validation. However, the validation was too complicated and I think we should only include the essential/most obvious ones in the synthesis validation.

Either way, I think it's a two way door to release this feature without the validation first and we can always add more validation in the future.

mergify · 2024-12-09T19:54:35Z

Thank you for contributing! Your pull request will be updated from main and then merged automatically (do not update manually, and be sure to allow changes to be pushed to your fork).

mergify · 2024-12-09T20:00:20Z

Thank you for contributing! Your pull request will be updated from main and then merged automatically (do not update manually, and be sure to allow changes to be pushed to your fork).

mergify · 2024-12-10T18:30:07Z

Thank you for contributing! Your pull request will be updated from main and then merged automatically (do not update manually, and be sure to allow changes to be pushed to your fork).

aws-cdk-automation · 2024-12-10T20:17:22Z

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

CodeBuild project: AutoBuildv2Project1C6BFA3F-wQm2hXv2jqQv
Commit ID: c549266
Result: SUCCEEDED
Build Logs (available for 30 days)

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

mergify · 2024-12-10T20:17:51Z

Thank you for contributing! Your pull request will be updated from main and then merged automatically (do not update manually, and be sure to allow changes to be pushed to your fork).

github-actions · 2024-12-10T20:18:05Z

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.

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

Merged

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

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

GavinZZ previously requested changes Dec 5, 2024

View reviewed changes

GavinZZ unassigned shikha372 Dec 5, 2024

wladyslawczyzewski added 3 commits December 6, 2024 15:41

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

722339d

feat(route53): remove validations from cdk code and rely on CFN for v…

87747dc

…alidations

Merge remote-tracking branch 'fork/route53_health_checks' into route5…

8bbc787

…3_health_checks

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

45c8019

Co-authored-by: GZ <[email protected]>

wladyslawczyzewski requested a review from GavinZZ December 6, 2024 20:43

GavinZZ approved these changes Dec 9, 2024

View reviewed changes

aws-cdk-automation removed the pr/needs-maintainer-review This PR needs a review from a Core Team Member label Dec 9, 2024

Merge branch 'main' into route53_health_checks

04aec48

mergify bot added 2 commits December 10, 2024 19:42

Merge branch 'main' into route53_health_checks

63af0b3

Merge branch 'main' into route53_health_checks

c549266

mergify bot merged commit 7fdd974 into aws:main Dec 10, 2024
17 checks passed

github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Dec 10, 2024

	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

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

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

codecov bot commented Nov 25, 2024 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

GavinZZ left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

wladyslawczyzewski commented Dec 6, 2024

GavinZZ commented Dec 9, 2024

mergify bot commented Dec 9, 2024

mergify bot commented Dec 9, 2024

mergify bot commented Dec 10, 2024

aws-cdk-automation commented Dec 10, 2024

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

mergify bot commented Dec 10, 2024

github-actions bot commented Dec 10, 2024

nmussy Jul 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Nov 25, 2024 •

edited

Loading