Skip to content

feat: Add support for websockets via appsync#77

Open
joshAtRula wants to merge 5 commits intoterraform-aws-modules:masterfrom
pathccm:add_websocket_support
Open

feat: Add support for websockets via appsync#77
joshAtRula wants to merge 5 commits intoterraform-aws-modules:masterfrom
pathccm:add_websocket_support

Conversation

@joshAtRula
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Description

This PR adds support into the module for websocket/Events API by expanding the overall module in order to provide this other side of AppSync's capabilities.

Motivation and Context

AppSync supports the Events API for websockets with different channel namespaces that allow for different configurations and topics. These are managed at the edge (certs and domain registration exist as an extension of cloudfront, and therefore only in us-east-1) and handle scalable event pub/sub and integration with various routing resources.

Breaking Changes

This PR was intentionally designed to not break existing functionality, and reuse as much of the existing resources with conditionals as possible.

It was designed to reuse components, while adhering to the mutually exclusive invocation of appsync for events vs graphql. Because an appsync invocation cannot support both graphql and websockets/events, the module is built to deny those actions and will require separate invocations to deploy one of each.

How Has This Been Tested?

  • I have updated at least one of the examples/* to demonstrate and validate my change(s)
  • I have tested and validated these changes using one or more of the provided examples/* projects
  • I have executed pre-commit run -a on my pull request

I have also exercised my fork of this module to deploy a websocket-based appsync in us-west-2 using this exact code for my organization.

@bryantbiggs
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

this looks like a lot of AI generated garbage

@joshAtRula
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@bryantbiggs AI was used to help make these improvements, yes, but hopefully there's some actual feedback and/or useful commentary you can provide (or someone else who can). This was tested and validated against actual resources, and was intentionally designed to adhere to the patterns in this repo. I'd be happy to address any concrete and actionable feedback you may have.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants