-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 343
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
Lambda events and the optionality of attributes - issues to clarify #858
Comments
We make these kind of changes all the time. We're not guaranteeing backwards compatibility between minor versions at the moment. See my latest PR where I changed an optional string to an enum: https://github.com/awslabs/aws-lambda-rust-runtime/pull/856/files#diff-68127a0a666444f6d22fb233e1b76b2be5f9379e390679c4e9cdcba5d1ce0a9cR24
Unfortunately, there is no easy way to verify events except by triggering them and inspecting the payloads. All these events were generated based on the Go events. Go doesn't have great string semantics, so everything that was a We've improved many events with the help of contributors like yourself, so don't hesitate to send PRs that can benefit other people.. |
This issue is now closed. Comments on closed issues are hard for our team to see. |
Thanks @calavera. |
Hi there!
Thanks for the massive amount of work put into developing this project. I've got an idea for an improvement I'd like to share.
Looking at the implementation of models for lambda events, some doubts have emerged in several places, which may require clarification and possibly correction.
Can I ask about the source on which the models for lambda events are implemented? I've scoured the entire internet, looking not only for written documentation but also Smithy, etc. At most, I found EventBridge Schemas, but not for lambda events.
I sporadically managed to find something in AWS Documentation, but only for a few events.
And where I did find a contract definition, I discovered inconsistencies in the implementation in this repository.
Let's take a closer look at the following:
partition_key
andsequence_number
are not optional (described as "Required: Yes" in API Reference)approximate_arrival_timestamp
shall be optionalencryption_type
might be defined as enum (NONE, KMS) instead of StringI could probably send a Pull Request, but it will involve breaking changes. I'm not sure if this is something that has to wait for a Major Release. On the other hand, these seem to be important issues.
And this raises the question of how we can verify the remaining events? That's why I was asking about the specification on which these things were implemented.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: