Closed andreabadesso closed 1 year ago
Merging #361 (06142ea) into dev (f1ddb06) will increase coverage by
0.22%
. The diff coverage is100.00%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## dev #361 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 94.53% 94.75% +0.22%
==========================================
Files 36 37 +1
Lines 2251 2308 +57
Branches 262 270 +8
==========================================
+ Hits 2128 2187 +59
+ Misses 123 121 -2
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
src/types.ts | 98.59% <ø> (ø) |
|
src/api/fullnodeProxy.ts | 100.00% <100.00%> (ø) |
|
src/api/utils.ts | 96.42% <100.00%> (+1.69%) |
:arrow_up: |
src/fullnode.ts | 100.00% <100.00%> (+20.00%) |
:arrow_up: |
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.
Acceptance Criteria
On using lambdas instead of ApiGateway directly
We could setup the proxy directly on
ApiGateway
, removing the need for the proxy lambdas (which are currently only making the request and returning the response transparentlyThat would avoid entirely the lambda calls and decrease our costs
The problem with that approach is that it is currently not supported by the serverless syntax, there is a serverless plugin to configure proxy integrations on the ApiGateway but it does not support HTTP integrations, which would be our usecase
I could try to implement it using the
CloudFormation
syntax on the serverless file, but it would take some time since I'm not quite used to it and would need some time to study it.Keeping that and the fact that this API is needed to finish the QA on the wallet-desktop and deploy the wallet-service facade for internal testing, I would suggest deploying the current solution using lambdas and create an issue to refactor this to use
ApiGateway
directlySecurity Checklist