Revert "fix: preserve mtime when zipping with the node zipper (#539)"

[bnegrao]

This PR reverts commit 162d9bc, which introduced non-deterministic behavior in the bundling process, leading to unnecessary re-deployments even when no code changes occurred. This change addresses issue #557.

[floydspace]

hi @bnegrao , thanks, I think it's fair to revert it, @iainlane we might need to have a better solution for this, like having configurtation option for zipper, for now I just let it revert

[iainlane]

Any idea what the problem is? Is it to do with the target system or something?

[iainlane]

A testcase to reproduce would be nice; the one which is being reverted here is asserting that the results are deterministic.

[github-actions]

🎉 This PR is included in version 1.54.4 🎉

The release is available on:

• npm package (@latest dist-tag)
• GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

[iainlane]

Actually, I suspect what is happening is that generated files are updated on a re-package. Isn't that what is expected? The zip should be different if the input files have been updated (touched).

So - I think reverting this was the wrong move. The old behaviour wasn't really correct, and the new one was. If you're repackaging and that involves updating the generated code, you should indeed expect a different checksum on your zip.

In other words:

The zip files should be bundled in a "deterministic" way, that means, bundling the same code should always produce the exact same bundle.

Disagree that we are seeing "nondeterminism".

[floydspace]

according to the logic, the mtime is taken from the containing folder, meaning anything that is changed in the folder causes hash recalculation, I suppose, I could be wrong though.

[iainlane]

I suspect if we took a look at the ls -lR of the zips we'd see the (generated) files have different mtimes.

Unless I understand this wrong (could be), we're taking the mtime of the source file itself - the file which is being added to the zip a few lines later. (On the next line we skip directories)

[floydspace]

Isn't that what is expected?

this is what I expect: no matter what changes are in the source code, if bundling produces the same bundle from content point of view, it should not trigger cloudformation changeset

[iainlane]

Well if that's the position then you disagree with my initial change as far as I can see. When are people doing this kind of no-change repackage?

If you ask me I'd state it as this: if you run a no-op rebuild (why?) then you should expect to get a redeploy, because your files did change - even if just in modification time.

Which is a conflicting position to yours, and unless you find that convincing, as the maintainer your view should be the one to prevail.

It's no problem. I'll go and look for another way to deploy in which I can have working bundled static assets. :-)