feat(apigatewayv2-integrations): sqs integrations

[badmintoncryer]

Issue # (if applicable)

Closes #24785.

Reason for this change

HTTP API supports AWS service integrations with SQS but CDK does not support this.

Description of changes

Added HttpSqsIntegration class

Description of how you validated changes

I've added both unit and integ 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

[aws-cdk-automation]

The pull request linter has failed. See the aws-cdk-automation comment below for failure reasons. If you believe this pull request should receive an exemption, please comment and provide a justification.

A comment requesting an exemption should contain the text Exemption Request. Additionally, if clarification is needed add Clarification Request to a comment.

✅ Updated pull request passes all PRLinter validations. Dismissing previous PRLinter review.

[TheRealAmazonKendra]

Thank you for your contribution! I really like the thought put in here to default values and abstracting away some of the parameters you know users will need every time. I have a few questions/comments inline regarding the contract. I'm not sure it's quite right but this is a great start.

[TheRealAmazonKendra]

Since only a couple of these are relevant here, I think that this isn't quite the right type to use here. Of the 10 values, only 4 work.

Additionally, per the comments above where you mention that certain arns need to be added based off the subtype here, I think that these props aren't quite the right contract in general. For instance, in the case that this subtype is START_EXECUTION, the parameter mapping shouldn't be optional because it must include at least the StateMachineArn.

[TheRealAmazonKendra]

Wait, I actually went back and read through the SubTypes more and it looks like the subtypes listed in the parameterMapping docstring above don't start with SQS_ so those comments don't mesh with the ones here in subType.

[badmintoncryer]

I'm really sorry for describing crazy comments for parameterMapping.
I have updated it and could you please re-confirm it?

[chriswilty]

Why not narrow down the type to the sane choices? Ah damn, it's an enum...

type PickEnum<T, K extends T> = {
	[P in keyof K]: P extends K ? P : never;
};

type HttpSqsIntegrationProps = {
  readonly subtype: PickEnum<HttpIntegrationSubtype,
		| HttpIntegrationSubtype.SQS_SEND_MESSAGE
		| HttpIntegrationSubtype.SQS_RECEIVE_MESSAGE
		| HttpIntegrationSubtype.SQS_DELETE_MESSAGE
		| HttpIntegrationSubtype.SQS_PURGE_QUEUE
	>;
	readonly parameterMapping?: ParameterMapping;
};

Would that work?

[badmintoncryer]

@chriswilty Thank you for your suggestion.
This PickEnum type will work correctly in TypeScript. However, it may not function properly when converted to other languages using jsii.
For example, I believe even TypeScript's union types couldn't be used in CDK.

I would like to check with the maintainer if it is usable.

[TheRealAmazonKendra]

Below in the code you're using this.props.queue.queueUrl so this doesn't seem accurate.

[badmintoncryer]

I have fixed it.

[TheRealAmazonKendra]

Are these parameter mappings typically defined or can they be whatever the user adds here?

[badmintoncryer]

Default parameter mappings are based on this docs.
I defined only required parameter such as QueueUrl for SQS_SEND_MESSAGE.

If a user wants to set optional parameters or change the values of required parameters, it is assumed that they will provide a custom-defined parameterMapping.

Is this response addressing your question? Please feel free to correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

Pull request has been modified.

[badmintoncryer]

@TheRealAmazonKendra Thank you for your review! I deeply apologize for the nonsensical comments regarding the parameterMappings. (It seems that it was likely mistakenly copied from somewhere...)
I have corrected the relevant sections and responded to your questions. Please review at your convenience.

[aws-cdk-automation]

This PR cannot be merged because it has conflicts. Please resolve them. The PR will be considered stale and closed if it remains in an unmergeable state.

[epoctic]

This looks awesome, can't wait to see it in a release!

[badmintoncryer]

@TheRealAmazonKendra Could you please review this PR again?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 78.46%. Comparing base (24adca3) to head (941867d).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #29646   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   78.46%   78.46%           
=======================================
  Files         106      106           
  Lines        7208     7208           
  Branches     1323     1323           
=======================================
  Hits         5656     5656           
  Misses       1364     1364           
  Partials      188      188           

Flag	Coverage Δ
suite.unit	78.46% <ø> (ø)

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

Components	Coverage Δ
packages/aws-cdk	78.46% <ø> (ø)

[aws-cdk-automation]

This PR cannot be merged because it has conflicts. Please resolve them. The PR will be considered stale and closed if it remains in an unmergeable state.

[aws-cdk-automation]

This PR cannot be merged because it has conflicts. Please resolve them. The PR will be considered stale and closed if it remains in an unmergeable state.

[aws-cdk-automation]

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

• CodeBuild project: AutoBuildv2Project1C6BFA3F-wQm2hXv2jqQv
• Commit ID: 941867d
• Result: SUCCEEDED
• Build Logs (available for 30 days)

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