Extract LambdaApp interface #2794
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
kenoir
force-pushed
the
rk/extract-lambda-interface
branch
from
cca21a4 to
28a7b91
Compare
kenoir
force-pushed
the
rk/extract-lambda-interface
branch
from
28a7b91 to
14a47a4
Compare
paul-butcher
approved these changes
Dec 20, 2024
5 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this change?
This change extracts an interface for scala lambda apps, into a trait
LambdaAppthat implements configuration and the lambda request handler interface, requiring consumers to implement the following functions:def processEvent(in: In): Future[Out]: Take some event (likely SQSEvent) and convert it to a Future of some outputdef build(rawConfig: Config): MyAppConfig: Convert typesafe config to internal app configHow to test
How can we measure success?
Easier to implement lambda apps elsewhere!
Have we considered potential risks?
This change should be a functional no-op.