Test Results - Preflight, Unit

22 278 tests   - 98   20 526 ✅  - 100   16m 34s ⏱️ +36s
     1 suites ± 0    1 752 💤 +  2 
     1 files   ± 0        0 ❌ ±  0 

Results for commit 9107c52. ± Comparison against base commit f829e69.

tests.unit.aws.protocol.test_op_router ‑ test_create_op_router_works_for_every_service[apptest]
tests.unit.aws.protocol.test_op_router ‑ test_create_op_router_works_for_every_service[iotfleethub]
tests.unit.aws.protocol.test_op_router ‑ test_create_op_router_works_for_every_service[lookoutmetrics]
tests.unit.aws.protocol.test_op_router ‑ test_create_op_router_works_for_every_service[lookoutvision]
tests.unit.aws.protocol.test_op_router ‑ test_create_op_router_works_for_every_service[qldb]
tests.unit.aws.protocol.test_op_router ‑ test_create_op_router_works_for_every_service[robomaker]
tests.unit.aws.test_connect.TestClientFactory ‑ test_typed_client_creation[qldb]
tests.unit.aws.test_connect.TestClientFactory ‑ test_typed_client_creation[qldb_session]
tests.unit.aws.test_service_router ‑ test_service_router_works_for_every_service[apptest-rest-json-CreateTestCase]
tests.unit.aws.test_service_router ‑ test_service_router_works_for_every_service[apptest-rest-json-CreateTestConfiguration]
…

tests.unit.aws.api.test_asf_providers ‑ test_provider_signatures[Ec2Provider-Ec2Api-create_ipam_prefix_list_resolver]
tests.unit.aws.api.test_asf_providers ‑ test_provider_signatures[Ec2Provider-Ec2Api-create_ipam_prefix_list_resolver_target]
tests.unit.aws.api.test_asf_providers ‑ test_provider_signatures[Ec2Provider-Ec2Api-delete_ipam_prefix_list_resolver]
tests.unit.aws.api.test_asf_providers ‑ test_provider_signatures[Ec2Provider-Ec2Api-delete_ipam_prefix_list_resolver_target]
tests.unit.aws.api.test_asf_providers ‑ test_provider_signatures[Ec2Provider-Ec2Api-describe_capacity_reservation_topology]
tests.unit.aws.api.test_asf_providers ‑ test_provider_signatures[Ec2Provider-Ec2Api-describe_ipam_prefix_list_resolver_targets]
tests.unit.aws.api.test_asf_providers ‑ test_provider_signatures[Ec2Provider-Ec2Api-describe_ipam_prefix_list_resolvers]
tests.unit.aws.api.test_asf_providers ‑ test_provider_signatures[Ec2Provider-Ec2Api-get_ipam_prefix_list_resolver_rules]
tests.unit.aws.api.test_asf_providers ‑ test_provider_signatures[Ec2Provider-Ec2Api-get_ipam_prefix_list_resolver_version_entries]
tests.unit.aws.api.test_asf_providers ‑ test_provider_signatures[Ec2Provider-Ec2Api-get_ipam_prefix_list_resolver_versions]
…

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

Test Results (amd64) - Acceptance

7 tests  ±0   5 ✅ ±0   3m 20s ⏱️ +6s
1 suites ±0   2 💤 ±0 
1 files   ±0   0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 9107c52. ± Comparison against base commit f829e69.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

Test Results (amd64) - Integration, Bootstrap

    5 files  ±0      5 suites  ±0   2h 38m 44s ⏱️ - 1m 27s
5 268 tests ±0  4 739 ✅ ±0  529 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
5 274 runs  ±0  4 739 ✅ ±0  535 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 9107c52. ± Comparison against base commit f829e69.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

LocalStack Community integration with Pro

    2 files  ±0      2 suites  ±0   2h 2m 35s ⏱️ -45s
4 894 tests ±0  4 525 ✅ ±0  369 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
4 896 runs  ±0  4 525 ✅ ±0  371 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 9107c52. ± Comparison against base commit f829e69.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

Same comment as in localstack/helm-charts#146. I would love to see if we can validate the PR to go 🍏 before merging

In general exposing the DNS server to the host is full of problems. Can we add a CLI flag that opts out of this behaviour? Otherwise the nodes will fail to start

Good point, adding two cli options

--expose-dns boolean to control the exposing of the DNS port
--dns-port integer to optionally change the DNS port

• --expose-dns boolean to control the exposing of the DNS port

My suggestion was a flag to opt out, but you have added flags to opt in. Why do you think it's better to opt in to this?

• --expose-dns boolean to control the exposing of the DNS port

My suggestion was a flag to opt out, but you have added flags to opt in. Why do you think it's better to opt in to this?

Sorry, I completely missed the out part of your suggestions.
But my thinking was to be consistent with the other flags of the script that are opt in.
That way, the change wont break existing setup of anyone using this script if the port 53 cannot be used.

I'm not settled on either way, I think exposing DNS to the host is only useful for people developing Route53 generally, and probably people are going to be annoyed by this constantly not working that an opt-in is fine. I just wanted to check the logic.