Skip to content
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 not apply APIGW wide settings on externally referenced APIGW #7034

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Dec 3, 2019

Conversation

medikoo
Copy link
Contributor

@medikoo medikoo commented Dec 2, 2019

Fixes serverless/dashboard-plugin#266

And partially addresses #6584

@medikoo medikoo added this to the 1.59.0 milestone Dec 2, 2019
@medikoo medikoo self-assigned this Dec 2, 2019
@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Dec 2, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #7034 into master will increase coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #7034      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   88.48%   88.48%   +<.01%     
==========================================
  Files         230      230              
  Lines        8452     8453       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits         7479     7480       +1     
  Misses        973      973
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
.../compile/events/apiGateway/lib/hack/updateStage.js 95.89% <100%> (+0.02%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 0b3f021...dea6ac3. Read the comment docs.

pmuens
pmuens previously approved these changes Dec 3, 2019
Copy link
Contributor

@pmuens pmuens left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good from a code perspective 👍 LGTM :shipit:

Just one question: Wouldn't this change be a breaking change or wasn't it even working in the first place?

@medikoo
Copy link
Contributor Author

medikoo commented Dec 3, 2019

Just one question: Wouldn't this change be a breaking change or wasn't it even working in the first place?

It was somewhat working in some cases (in others no, e.g.: #7036 )

I think we should consider a bug, and if someone relied on it, will have to update to alternative method (imo it's better to revert than leave it breaking for non-working or partially-working cases)

@medikoo medikoo merged commit cd76e7e into master Dec 3, 2019
@medikoo medikoo deleted the limit-sdk-updates-to-local-apigw branch December 3, 2019 13:02
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Rest API id could not be resolved
3 participants