-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
DO-1530: Upgrade constructs #1073
DO-1530: Upgrade constructs #1073
Conversation
* upgrade basic-auth construct * upgrade cloudfront-security-headers construct
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
"build": "", | ||
"prepublish": "", | ||
"build": "tsc", | ||
"prepublish": "tsc", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why tsc
on prepublish? 🤔 Just thinking in the pipeline we'd probably build and then publish so this would run tsc
twice. If we're just gonna run publish
I think changing from tsc
to npm run build
makes more sense
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this currently exists in the main branch. i only removed the commands for convenience and then re-added them back 🤔
) { | ||
super(scope, id); | ||
|
||
const defineOptions: any = {}; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there a type for this rather than any?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i think we could add __CONTENT_SECURITY_POLICY__
🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we need to include this if it's all commented out? 😅
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
probably not, i'm not sure if this was even right, but i didn't spend anytime migrating tests 😛
thanks @TheOrangePuff, i'll make the suggested changes in a separate PR |
Description of the proposed changes
basic-auth
construct to CDK v2cloudfront-security-headers
to CDK v2geoip-redirect
to CDK v2lambda-at-edge-handlers
prerender-proxy
to CDK v2rabbitmq
to CDK v2shared-vpc
to CDK v2waf
to CDK v2