feat(apigatewayv2-integrations): WebSocketMockIntegration props

[nmussy]

Issue # (if applicable)

None

Reason for this change

Unlike the other integrations, WebSocketMockIntegration did not have a props interface, and was missing a few properties. This PR does not include integration responses, they are already being implemented in #29661

Description of changes

• Added requestTemplates and templateSelectionExpression to the newly created WebSocketMockIntegrationProps

Description of how you validated changes

Unit and integration tests were updated

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

[nmussy]

Previous discussion: https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/pull/29661/files#r1649290535

[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.

[nmussy]

Exemption Request: WebSocketMockIntegration is currently not mentioned in any README file

[msambol]

need @example ?

[msambol]

LGTM

[GavinZZ]

nit comment: Can you update the integ test file name to be more descriptive? something like websocket-mock-integration or anything align the line.

[GavinZZ]

Exemption Request: WebSocketMockIntegration is currently not mentioned in any README file

I don't think this is a good enough reasoning. Some documentation should have been added when this construct is initially added. Would you please add somethiing to the README to explain the usage and what this is for? Appreciate it.

[nmussy]

Sorry for the late reply, catching up on my notifications. I've added a section in the README for mock integrations.

nit comment: Can you update the integ test file name to be more descriptive? something like websocket-mock-integration or anything align the line.

I understand the possible source for confusion here, but the existing integration files for the response types follow the same naming pattern:

$ tree packages/@aws-cdk-testing/framework-integ/test/aws-apigatewayv2-integrations/test/websocket/ -L 1 -I '*/' --gitignore
packages/@aws-cdk-testing/framework-integ/test/aws-apigatewayv2-integrations/test/websocket/
├── integ.aws.ts
├── integ.lambda-connect-disconnect-trigger.ts
├── integ.lambda.ts
├── integ.mock.ts
├── integ.route-response.ts
└── integ.sqs.ts

$ tree packages/@aws-cdk-testing/framework-integ/test/aws-apigatewayv2-integrations/test/http/ -L 1 -I '*/' --gitignore
packages/@aws-cdk-testing/framework-integ/test/aws-apigatewayv2-integrations/test/http/
├── integ.add-subroute-integration.ts
├── integ.alb.ts
├── integ.http-proxy.ts
├── integ.lambda-proxy.ts
├── integ.nlb.ts
├── integ.service-discovery.ts
└── integ.stepfunctions.ts

Let me know how you want to handle this, but only renaming integ.mock.ts would make it look out of place. I also think there is enough context in the relative file path, adding more would be a bit repetitive (aws-apigatewayv2-integrations/test/websocket/integ.mock.ts)

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 78.67%. Comparing base (093c540) to head (e75d6c5).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #30622   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   78.67%   78.67%           
=======================================
  Files         107      107           
  Lines        7237     7237           
  Branches     1329     1329           
=======================================
  Hits         5694     5694           
  Misses       1357     1357           
  Partials      186      186           

Flag	Coverage Δ
suite.unit	78.67% <ø> (ø)

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

Components	Coverage Δ
packages/aws-cdk	78.67% <ø> (ø)

[aws-cdk-automation]

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

• CodeBuild project: AutoBuildv2Project1C6BFA3F-wQm2hXv2jqQv
• Commit ID: e75d6c5
• Result: SUCCEEDED
• Build Logs (available for 30 days)

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