sls-test-tools VS aws-cdk-rfcs

Creating an EventBridge target to dump events to SQS. This approach was proposed in several articles (here and here) and implemented in the sls-test-tools library

How can you achieve that? 🤔 Using sls-test-tools 🏅

Check out the sls-test-tools as well. It is a great library. I'm using aws-testing-library because I'm used to it.

Integration testing in serverless architectures can be challenging. Testing specific outcomes within managed services is cumbersome. sls-test-tools provides a range of utilities, setup, teardown and assertions to make it easier to write effective and high quality integration tests for Serverless Architectures on AWS.

sls-test-tools

When writing tests using something like aws-testing-library or sls-test-tools, we must have credentials to an AWS account that at least lets us send a few events and subscribe to or query the results in order to perform assertions. Depending on the stance of our organization about cloud access, this could be completely fine or it could be a never-gonna-happen dealbreaker. Often this kind of approach will be OK for a development environment, but it could be unlikely to fly in production.

This was the most voted RFC.

The scheduler is a refined and improved version of the older rules mechanism. So, why would you use the older rule mechanism for scheduled tasks? I don’t see any reason other than the better CDK constructs support (which is only temporary, see this PR).

CDK released the L1 construct for Pipes in v2.55 back in December 2022. Unfortunately, the L2 construct is still in progress, so we will have to manually specify most of the CloudFormation template but bear with me, it won’t be too painful. The community is working on an L2 construct; you can find the issue on GitHub here.

The experimental cdk feature is described here. The rfc is still open so you might be able to track or influence how it will stabilize.

More info on L1 vs L2 constructs here. I plan to keep an eye on this open RFC.

You could hardcode the stack names. But this is one of the biggest limitations CDK still has: no easy way yet to refactor names like this. There's an open RFC, but it isn't moving much.

It is not very convenient to delete some resources manually and there are several discussions with AWS developers to fix it.

It's worth mentioning that AWS CDK already has an RFC for integration testing so we might end up with something even better. In the meantime, if you are serious about integration testing, time to give AWS CDK and Provider Framework a look!

One apparent limitation of the CDK is that, at least for the nonce, it can only be used with AWS (there are two notable projects in the work right now that will greatly expand CDK's reach: cdk8s and cdktf). With Terraform you can use choose from a plethora of providers. Hell, I was able to set up my home network running on Unifi Dream Machine using Terraform. How cool is that?!