revert: "feat(codepipeline): GitPushFilter with branches and file paths for trigger"
#30462
Conversation
…ths for …" This reverts commit ddbbd00.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
gracelu0
changed the title
GitPushFilter with branches and file paths for trigger"GitPushFilter with branches and file paths for trigger"
gracelu0
changed the title
GitPushFilter with branches and file paths for trigger"GitPushFilter with branches and file paths for trigger"
aws-cdk-automation
dismissed
their stale review
✅ Updated pull request passes all PRLinter validations. Dismissing previous PRLinter review.
aws-cdk-automation
added
the
pr/needs-maintainer-review
|
Thank you for contributing! Your pull request will be updated from main and then merged automatically (do not update manually, and be sure to allow changes to be pushed to your fork). |
aws-cdk-automation
removed
the
pr/needs-maintainer-review
|
Thank you for contributing! Your pull request will be updated from main and then merged automatically (do not update manually, and be sure to allow changes to be pushed to your fork). |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
|
Thank you for contributing! Your pull request will be updated from main and then merged automatically (do not update manually, and be sure to allow changes to be pushed to your fork). |
|
@gracelu0 Why did you revert? I would like you to state reasons. Is it relevant to the following comment? |
Hi @go-to-k , yes I believe so. @TheRealAmazonKendra is working on some CodePipeline changes and can provide more context here. Thank you for your effort and apologies as I know the community has been looking forward to this feature. I'll make sure to communicate more clearly next time beforehand. |
|
This was reverted based off my request because there were a couple bugs in the logic and because the contract here doesn't meet our design guidelines. Wherever possible (and I recognize that it is not possible. 100% of the time), we should not have optional props that are mutually exclusive or that rely on each other. If you require several statements validating the contract you have defined, that indicates that the contract is not quite right. This is not perfect, this here is a PR that I have in progress to deprecate the triggers as they exist now and to improve the abstraction #30516. While we have limitations of how much we can perfect things here because of the changes that are already released, we should be using enum like classes and adding static functions to abstract away complexity and improve upon the CloudFormation contract. |
|
Thanks for your clarification. I got it. |
|
Comments on closed issues and PRs are hard for our team to see. If you need help, please open a new issue that references this one. |
Reverts #29127