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

[Feature]: DynamoDB Resource #895

Closed
1 task done
mikegin opened this issue May 9, 2023 · 5 comments
Closed
1 task done

[Feature]: DynamoDB Resource #895

mikegin opened this issue May 9, 2023 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels
S-Blocked Implementing this is currently blocked by other issues and/or upstream dependencies S-Investigation This issue needs further investigation or design to figure out a solution T-Feature Request A request for a new feature

Comments

@mikegin
Copy link
Contributor

mikegin commented May 9, 2023

Describe the feature

Extending available auto provisioned resources to include non SQL (AWS RDS) type. DynamoDB would be a good candidate as is popular and still based in AWS.

Suggestion or Example of how the feature would be used

No response

Duplicate declaration

  • I have searched the issues and this feature has not been requested before.
@paulotten
Copy link
Contributor

We probably want to be able to run locally. See https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/DynamoDBLocal.html

@jonaro00 jonaro00 added T-Feature Request A request for a new feature S-Accepted This will be worked on S-Investigation This issue needs further investigation or design to figure out a solution and removed Shuttle Batch S-Accepted This will be worked on labels Aug 17, 2023
@oddgrd oddgrd added the S-Blocked Implementing this is currently blocked by other issues and/or upstream dependencies label Sep 4, 2023
@oddgrd
Copy link
Contributor

oddgrd commented Sep 4, 2023

This is blocked on figuring out how we can securily provision multi-tenant resources like this.

@paulotten
Copy link
Contributor

@oddgrd I assume you are aware of https://github.com/shuttle-hq/shuttle/pull/910/files#diff-9aa440c73eedfd63ea9f7221d4be2d948eb7af1bffaadd9eec69a379ab1c9cadR659?

That policy restricts users access to only tables that match the assigned prefix.

@oddgrd
Copy link
Contributor

oddgrd commented Sep 4, 2023

Oh, sorry, that was a bit unclear. Our concern was that we had to give permissions to the provisioner to create users and policies. So we want to find a way to support resources like dynamodb and s3 (where we can't just return a public URL like we do for RDS) without needing those permissions in the provisioner.

@jonaro00
Copy link
Member

Closing in favour of #1568

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-Blocked Implementing this is currently blocked by other issues and/or upstream dependencies S-Investigation This issue needs further investigation or design to figure out a solution T-Feature Request A request for a new feature
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants