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

feat(amplify-appsync-simulator): add TransactWriteItems support #5574

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: dev
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

chucre
Copy link
Contributor

@chucre chucre commented Oct 13, 2020

add TransactWriteItems support to DynamoDB operations

Add TransactWriteItems support to amplify-appsync-simulator

Issue #, if available:
implement aws-amplify/amplify-category-api#259

Description of changes:
Implement the missing TransactWriteItems operator to DynamoDB data loader

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

…amoDB operations

Add TransactWriteItems support to amplify-appsync-simulator

implemenst #5504
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 13, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #5574 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           master    aws-amplify/amplify-cli#5574    +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage   59.08%   59.08%            
========================================
  Files         402      402            
  Lines       18043    18043            
  Branches     3575     3388   -187     
========================================
  Hits        10661    10661            
- Misses       6723     6743    +20     
+ Partials      659      639    -20     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
...ackages/amplify-cli/src/utils/mobilehub-support.ts 39.28% <0.00%> (ø)
...gen-appsync-model-plugin/src/utils/process-auth.ts 100.00% <ø> (ø)
packages/amplify-util-mock/src/api/api.ts 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
packages/graphql-mapping-template/src/print.ts 34.65% <0.00%> (ø)
packages/amplify-util-mock/src/storage/storage.ts 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ges/amplify-util-mock/src/CFNParser/stack/index.ts 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...es/amplify-util-mock/src/api/resolver-overrides.ts 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...es/graphql-transformer-core/src/stripDirectives.ts 35.29% <0.00%> (ø)
.../amplify-cli-core/src/state-manager/pathManager.ts 70.42% <0.00%> (ø)
.../amplify-util-mock/src/utils/lambda/loadMinimal.ts 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 11 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 763f4af...520ebda. Read the comment docs.

@lgtm-com
Copy link

lgtm-com bot commented Oct 13, 2020

This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging 520ebda into 43eb3e8 - view on LGTM.com

new alerts:

  • 1 for Unused variable, import, function or class

@jhockett jhockett changed the title feat(amplify-appsync-simulato): add TransactWriteItems support feat(amplify-appsync-simulator): add TransactWriteItems support Nov 10, 2020
@jhockett jhockett added the pending-review Pending review from core-team label Nov 10, 2020
@edwardfoyle edwardfoyle requested a review from yuth March 8, 2021 23:23
@cheneveld
Copy link

@yuth @jhockett Any idea when this could be merged in?

@cheneveld
Copy link

@yuth Any chance we can move this PR forward?

@majirosstefan
Copy link

Dear Amplify team, would it be possible to merge this pull request after 1 year of ignoring it, please?

@staffanpalopaa
Copy link

Do I understand it correctly that this pull request has been waiting for over a year without any feedback?? For anyone who builds a complex multi user application it's absolutely essential to be able to run fast tests involving transactions!!

@chucre chucre requested a review from a team as a code owner July 13, 2022 17:30
@a-marcel
Copy link

a-marcel commented Jan 2, 2023

Any news here ? @yuth

@Amplifiyer
Copy link
Contributor

Apologies for the delay. Started looking into this PR, only thing missing is testing. Please add some unit tests and if applicable, steps on how the change was tested locally.

@Amplifiyer Amplifiyer assigned Amplifiyer and unassigned yuth Feb 2, 2023
@Amplifiyer Amplifiyer requested review from Amplifiyer and removed request for yuth February 2, 2023 12:15
@sobolk sobolk added pending-response Issue is pending response from the issue author and removed pending-review Pending review from core-team labels Mar 21, 2023
@danielleadams
Copy link
Contributor

@chucre are you still interested in making this contribution?

@sobolk sobolk requested a review from a team as a code owner February 24, 2025 22:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
pending-response Issue is pending response from the issue author
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants