fix(bedrock-agentcore-alpha): AssetImage artifact causes pipeline sel…

[sm29105]

fix(bedrock-agentcore-alpha): AssetImage artifact causes pipeline self-mutation on folder content change

Issue # (if applicable)

Closes #35968.

Reason for this change

When using an AssetImage based artifact for the runtime agent a change to the folder contents will change the asset's name which causes a CDK pipeline self-mutation.
This is unexpected behaviour and does not align with similar use-cases like image-based Lambda functions.

Description of changes

Remove MD5 hash component from the image asset's name - like e.g. the case for image assets for AWS Lambda functions

Describe any new or updated permissions being added

None

Description of how you validated changes

Manual test of solution with a company internal pipeline that showed the unexpected behaviour.

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

[aws-cdk-automation]

(This review is outdated)

[sm29105]

Exemption Request:
Integration tests were actually updated.
For the implemented change only an update to the snapshots was required, not to the the test itself (just naming changed, names just tested via snapshot files).

[mazyu36]

The change itself is LGTM.
Warnings are issued if changes to integ.*.ts are not included.
If you consider it unnecessary, it would be good to add an exemption request.

https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/tools/@aws-cdk/prlint/lint.ts#L394

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

[Abogical]

Integ test can be exempted, but a simpler unit test to check the name will be needed. This is just to make sure that we don't change the naming behavior in the future.

[sm29105]

Integ test can be exempted, but a simpler unit test to check the name will be needed. This is just to make sure that we don't change the naming behavior in the future.

Hi - not sure how to test this with a unit test. I'm absolutely no CDK developer (not even a TypeScript expert) - what I saw is that the interally created DockerImageAsset is a private member of the AssetImage and _render() does not expose the name so I can't check the name here. As the integration test snapshot were updated also a name change would break the integration test in the first moment.

If still an unit test is needed, I would need detailed advice how to do.

Thanks for understanding.

Pull request has been modified.

[Abogical]

@sm29105

• The list of unit tests are in runtime.test.ts. A single jest test case will only be needed to be added here.
• The test case will only assert that the template's asset image name will not have the md5 and simply have the correct name. See how assertions are made here.

If you still need help, let us know.

[Abogical]

See above, unit tests to be added.

[sm29105]

@sm29105

• The list of unit tests are in runtime.test.ts. A single jest test case will only be needed to be added here.
• The test case will only assert that the template's asset image name will not have the md5 and simply have the correct name. See how assertions are made here.

If you still need help, let us know.

@Abogical

Had a look and tried to figure out what to do but failed after 1h now. :(

As mentioned I don't know any dev internals of CDK or TypeScript - don't even know how to run tests locally or so.
Also not plan to become a CDK developer.
As the fix itself was straight-forward I offered to create the PR by myself, but cannot spend more time for digging into how exactly the testing mechanisms are working.

Can please somebody else take over? I would assume it takes 5 minutes for somebody that know what to touch.

Thanks for understanding ;)

[Abogical]

Ok no problem, I'll keep this PR open so anyone could take over.

[alvazjor]

Hi @sm29105
Thanks for this initial step. I continued your PR here and added the unit tests. Will close this PR in favor of the new one
@Abogical feel free to review the new PR

[github-actions]

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.