fix(apigateway): correct JsonSchema.additionalItems property type

[jusdino]

Issue #33878

Closes #33878.

Reason for this change

Fix a bug in the JsonSchema interface.

🚨 This is a breaking change, but should be acceptable, since the bug prevented use of the changed interface portion 🚨

Description of changes

Changing the JsonSchema.additionalItems type from JsonSchema[] to JsonSchema | boolean to match Json Schema Draft-04. This enables deployment of API Gateway models that include the additionalItems property.

Describe any new or updated permissions being added

None

Description of how you validated changes

Added an integration test to validate that it fixes the deployment issue.

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(This review is outdated)

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 84.00%. Comparing base (74cbe27) to head (dccc7e8).
Report is 34 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #33879      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   83.98%   84.00%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         120      121       +1     
  Lines        6976     6984       +8     
  Branches     1178     1179       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits         5859     5867       +8     
  Misses       1005     1005              
  Partials      112      112              

Flag	Coverage Δ
suite.unit	84.00% <ø> (+0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components	Coverage Δ
packages/aws-cdk	∅ <ø> (∅)
packages/aws-cdk-lib/core	84.00% <ø> (+0.01%)	⬆️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[jusdino]

I think that the CodeBuild check is failing because this is a breaking API change. I'm not sure how to use allowed-breaking-changes.txt to indicate to the check that the break is intentional and should be OK. If I understand the breaking change policy for this project right, this break should be acceptable, since the bug that this PR fixes prevents use of the part of the interface that is changing.

[jusdino]

@pahud , good morning! Do you have time to take a look at this? I don't want the PR automation to start threatening to auto-close this PR.

[jusdino]

Hey, that's neat ☝️ . We've blown past the 90th percentile 😆.

@pahud do you have time to have a look? It's a pretty straight forward update - just need to have a conversation with whoever is comfortable looking at the break to verify it is acceptable and correct, I hope. Please let me know any way I can help get this moving.

[pahud]

Hi @jusdino

I won't be able to review your PR but I will bring this up to the team for input here. Meanwhile, you can reach out to cdk.dev slack community for community inputs as well.

[pahud]

By the way, as long as your PR passes the CI, it will be in the queue for community review followed by maintainer review.

Check this document for more details: https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/wiki/CDK-Community-PR-Reviews

[jusdino]

By the way, as long as your PR passes the CI, it will be in the queue for community review followed by maintainer review.

Check this document for more details: https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/wiki/CDK-Community-PR-Reviews

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm worried about - I can't make this pass CI, since it is a breaking change ☝️. I'll reach out to the slack community and see what mileage I can get.

Thanks for the responses!

[kaizencc]

this isn't a real review -- just a stab at what you might need to get this to pass the build. sorry we are being very obtuse about what gets in the queue for review and what doesn't.

[Abogical]

Hi @jusdino ! Thank you for making the issue and PR.

A unit test would need to be added to check that RestApi.addModel will behave correctly when a boolean or object additionalItems is passed. The test would just check that the additionalItems within the CloudFormation properties is set correctly. The test suite for that is in restapi.test.ts.

Pull request has been modified.

[mergify]

Thank you for contributing! Your pull request will be updated from main and then merged automatically (do not update manually, and be sure to allow changes to be pushed to your fork).

[aws-cdk-automation]

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

• CodeBuild project: AutoBuildv2Project1C6BFA3F-wQm2hXv2jqQv
• Commit ID: 4e7af1f
• Result: SUCCEEDED
• Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

[mergify]

Thank you for contributing! Your pull request will be updated from main and then merged automatically (do not update manually, and be sure to allow changes to be pushed to your fork).

[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.