-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.4k
CFn: fix number parameter types #13231
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
Conversation
Test Results - Preflight, Unit22 298 tests +6 20 555 ✅ +6 15m 59s ⏱️ +25s Results for commit 812284b. ± Comparison against base commit 928f470. This pull request removes 1 and adds 7 tests. Note that renamed tests count towards both.♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
Test Results - Alternative Providers578 tests - 772 330 ✅ - 371 25m 44s ⏱️ - 14m 22s Results for commit 812284b. ± Comparison against base commit 928f470. This pull request removes 775 and adds 3 tests. Note that renamed tests count towards both.This pull request removes 404 skipped tests and adds 3 skipped tests. Note that renamed tests count towards both.♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
Test Results (amd64) - Integration, Bootstrap 5 files ± 0 5 suites ±0 2h 40m 17s ⏱️ + 1m 44s Results for commit 812284b. ± Comparison against base commit 928f470. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
pinzon
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM 👍
| if s is False or s is True: | ||
| return False |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Praise: Nice consideration.
| parameters={"LogGroupName": log_group_name}, | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| snapshot.match("failed-stack-describe", exc_info.value.describe_result) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nit: It could be useful to have the status reason if there was any.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry I'm not sure I understand. There is no StatusReason in the snapshot so do you mean we should set it even though it's not in parity?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No. I'm talking about the StatusReason that should be in the CREATE_FAILED event of the Log Group.
Motivation
A customer raised an issue with deploying their stack which contains a
NumberParameter type. Specifically they were using it in a condition:When supplied with the input
[{"ParameterKey": "Value", "ParameterValue": "1"}](all parameter values passed in are strings) the1was treated as a string, then compared to the integer1(i.e."1" == 1), which is falsy and as such the condition evaluates toFalse.Changes
TBD