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

add basic function implementation #87

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Jul 24, 2023
Merged

add basic function implementation #87

merged 9 commits into from
Jul 24, 2023

Conversation

edwardfoyle
Copy link
Contributor

Issue #, if available:

Description of changes:
Basic functions implementation. This is pretty much just a passthrough to the native CDK Function construct at this point. But it's a starting point for us to build some of our higher level abstractions like introspecting inline functions and wiring up auth triggers, etc.

I also updated the existing integration test to include data and functions. Adding data should have probably gone in a separate PR, but it was easy enough to add it here so I went for it. I can split it into a separate PR if it's an issue though

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

Copy link
Member

@sobolk sobolk 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 overall.

packages/backend-function/src/factory.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

generateContainerEntry(scope: Construct) {
if (this.props.buildCommand) {
execaCommandSync(this.props.buildCommand, {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we make generateContainerEntry async ?

In general I'd use async apis if they're available and make our stack async top bottom where applicable.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The difficulty is all of this rolls up into the Backend class constructor which cannot be async. So we can either wrap this in an IIFE or use the sync version of the function

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This makes me ask similar question Praveen asked below https://github.com/aws-amplify/samsara-cli/pull/87/files/f5268928d7669a2e8fb371aa837409c59e12f27f#r1268260426 .

Is this right place to do this ?

Perhaps we should wrap/extend (not sure which is right but I'd try composition first) function construct and hook up build into synthesis process ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@edwardfoyle edwardfoyle Jul 19, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

hook up build into synthesis process

isn't that what's happening here? All of this runs during synth, including this build. I can't think of how we would get this to execute during deploy time unless the scripts were defined in a separate config file outside of the TS definition

Copy link
Contributor Author

@edwardfoyle edwardfoyle Jul 19, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I suppose one idea could be something like this:

const myFunc = await new Func({}).build('tsc whatever')

The build method would look like:

class AmplifyFunctionFactory {
  async build(command: string): Promise<AmplifyFunctionFactory> {
    await execaCommand(command);
    return this;
  }
}

This would require customers are using node 18 and define the function in a module so they can use top-level await, but it would allow the build to happen async before the backend class is initialized

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The tryBundle function that local bundlers must implement is synchronous. So we could use that but we'd still be forced to use synchronous functions for executing build commands there

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't see the CDK bundler being fundamentally better than the solution this PR implements. Even if a local bundler is specified, it still has to be sync and if it fails, CDK automatically falls back to trying to bundle in docker which would also fail for customers who haven't set that up. Amplify has made explicit decisions in the past to not take a dependency on customers having docker installed locally and I don't think this PR is the time to revisit that decision. The implementation here allows us to write a normal async build function and leaves the door open to allowing customers to provide an async build function in the future

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree.
Fitting function build into sync handler, while inviting, seems fundamentally wrong if it involves I/O.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree that this PR is not the place for such decisions/discussions and that it needs to be properly designed and reviewed with the right audience (hopefully with cdk team as well). Based on the conversation in this thread, I propose that we

  1. Merge this PR iff it unblocks us on the future implementation tasks
  2. Engage product to get the product requirements clarified for the functions construct (Current CLI is plagued with bugs and feature requests)
  3. Do a design review and revisit this PR if needed.

This design will also help ensure that the conclusions we are making in this PR regarding future assumptions (we will need I/O for building/bundling javascript functions) or based on our past decisions (we don’t want docker) will hold ground as we grow.

Some highly requested related bug/features in current CLI

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Going to go ahead and merge this because it will unblock us to implement auth triggers.

I think this impl is simple enough that we won't have to backtrack much if we decide to change the approach for function building.

I agree we should review some of our longstanding function issues with product to see what we want to address in the future.

packages/function-construct/src/construct.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
packages/integration-tests/src/cdk_out_dir_validator.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
packages/backend-function/src/factory.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
packages/backend-function/src/factory.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
packages/backend-function/src/factory.test.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
sobolk
sobolk previously approved these changes Jul 20, 2023
packages/backend-function/src/factory.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

generateContainerEntry(scope: Construct) {
if (this.props.buildCommand) {
execaCommandSync(this.props.buildCommand, {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Few thoughts

  • How does CDK accept a build command? I couldn't see much in their documentation except for bundling code where customer can specify multiple commands that CDK will execute during synth
  • If CDK has code building support, why don't we use it as-is?
  • If we do have to build 'building' nevertheless, shouldn't we do it in a docker container (similar to CDK) or in a VM (similar to amplify)?
  • Is lambda layer in scope? If not now, would this solution work with lambda layers?

sobolk
sobolk previously approved these changes Jul 21, 2023
Amplifiyer
Amplifiyer previously approved these changes Jul 24, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@Amplifiyer Amplifiyer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks! Can you also leave a TODO on the build method with a github issue to revisit it later?

Comment on lines +14 to +16
static build(props: AmplifyFunctionFactoryBuildProps): Promise<AmplifyFunctionFactory>;
static fromDir(props: AmplifyFunctionFactoryFromDirProps): AmplifyFunctionFactory;
getInstance({ constructContainer, }: ConstructFactoryGetInstanceProps): AmplifyFunction;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

factory method to produce factory that produces something :-)

@edwardfoyle edwardfoyle merged commit b5afd08 into main Jul 24, 2023
@edwardfoyle edwardfoyle deleted the basic-functions branch July 24, 2023 19:45
Omit<AmplifyFunctionProps, 'absoluteCodePath'> & {
/**
* The command to run that generates built function code.
* This command is run from the directory where this factory is called
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

does this mean if I specify npm run build-my-function it will run from amplify/functions/my-function? does this require me to have a corresponding package.json in that location?

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.

4 participants