Route53: add `Update` support for `RecordSet` resource #13627

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Merged

bentsku merged 4 commits into main from route53-record-set-cfn-update

Jan 29, 2026

+962 −114

Contributor

bentsku commented Jan 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Motivation

We got a customer report for UPDATE support for the.AWS::Route53:RecordSet resource provider.

I've added a bit more CREATE test around the operation, split the tests for the different resources and added one update test. Luckily, it is actually pretty simple because the operation used for ResourceRecordSet does support creation, deletion and update all at once, so we do not need to fully handle the update logic in the provider itself.

The only special case is SetIdentifier, because you cannot update a value that has a different SetIdentifier, it has to be deleted and recreated (as it is the identifier value to properly update a RecordSet when you have multiple).

Changes

refactor Route53 tests to be in the route53 test module for better test detection
add more RecordSet CloudFormation tests, especially with multiple values and containing AliasTarget
add support for the update operation and a test for it

Tests

Related

bentsku added this to the 4.13 milestone

bentsku self-assigned this

bentsku added aws:route53 semver: minor docs: skip notes: skip labels

github-actions bot commented Jan 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Test Results - Preflight, Unit

23 084 tests 21 225 ✅ 6m 8s ⏱️
1 suites 1 859 💤
1 files 0 ❌

Results for commit fe6d14a.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

github-actions bot commented Jan 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Test Results (amd64) - Acceptance

7 tests 5 ✅ 3m 1s ⏱️
1 suites 2 💤
1 files 0 ❌

Results for commit fe6d14a.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

github-actions bot commented Jan 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

LocalStack Community integration with Pro

2 files 2 suites 1h 58m 33s ⏱️
5 178 tests 4 790 ✅ 388 💤 0 ❌
5 180 runs 4 790 ✅ 390 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit fe6d14a.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

github-actions bot commented Jan 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Test Results (amd64) - Integration, Bootstrap

5 files 5 suites 2h 38m 47s ⏱️
5 599 tests 5 041 ✅ 558 💤 0 ❌
5 605 runs 5 041 ✅ 564 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit fe6d14a.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

github-actions bot commented Jan 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Test Results - Alternative Providers

582 tests 322 ✅ 17m 14s ⏱️
1 suites 260 💤
1 files 0 ❌

Results for commit fe6d14a.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

bentsku added 4 commits

January 27, 2026 19:34


          refactor tests and validate/snapshot them

bb9f860


          create test for AliasTarget


          wip: add update test

bb857ba


          implement UPDATE support for ResourceRecord

fe6d14a

bentsku force-pushed the route53-record-set-cfn-update branch from 4815318 to fe6d14a Compare

January 27, 2026 18:34

bentsku marked this pull request as ready for review

January 28, 2026 09:39

bentsku requested review from dominikschubert, giograno, pinzon and simonrw as code owners

January 28, 2026 09:39

bentsku modified the milestones: 4.13, 4.14

Contributor

simonrw commented Jan 29, 2026

The only special case is SetIdentifier, because you cannot update a value that has a different SetIdentifier, it has to be deleted and recreated (as it is the identifier value to properly update a RecordSet when you have multiple).

Interesting, but this is not a createOnlyProperty 🤔 either this is an issue with the spec (not impossible) or a weird create/delete process that has to happen in the resource provider.

Contributor Author

bentsku commented Jan 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Yeah, I think this is because there is no real identifier for RecordSet, the SetIdentifier is an optional field depending on the type of "routing policy" you choose, which influence the shape of the RecordSet field (presence of Weight, etc, the spec is not really well thought out), the type is only inferred from the presence of certain fields. You only have the SetIdentifier field when the RecordSet can have multiple entries.

Also, to delete a RecordSet (from the CLI for example), technically you need to provide all the fields that the RecordSet currently has, I suppose to do equality checks. It is a weird operation in itself, even without CloudFormation

See this about the routing policy / how to influence the shape: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/Route53/latest/DeveloperGuide/routing-policy.html

Also, you can see how the Id field is the same for all the RecordSet, it is a bit of a weird resource 😅 I checked that against AWS, I could add more tests for it, but could confirm.

simonrw approved these changes

View reviewed changes

Contributor

simonrw left a comment

Thanks for implementing this change, and going the extra mile to improve the create behaviour as well!

tests/aws/services/route53/resource_providers/test_aws_route53_recordset.py

+                  rr_sets = aws_client.route53.list_resource_record_sets(HostedZoneId=hosted_zone_id)
+                  snapshot.match("record-sets-update-alias-target", rr_sets)
+                  parameters["BucketTwoSetIdentifier"] = "region-3"

Contributor

simonrw Jan 29, 2026

idea: since you say the SetIdentifier has to recreate the record set completely, yet it's not listed in the CFn createOnlyParameters, it would be useful to use the capture_per_resource_events fixture and assert the results (after filtering) to see if the behaviour on CFn is as if it were a createOnlyProperty or if it is indeed handled in the resource provider.

Contributor

simonrw Jan 29, 2026

I have just done this and I find (time goes down):

- CREATE_IN_PROGRESS
- CREATE_COMPLETE
- UPDATE_IN_PROGRESS
- UPDATE_COMPLETE
- UPDATE_IN_PROGRESS
- UPDATE_COMPLETE
- UPDATE_IN_PROGRESS
- UPDATE_COMPLETE

so yes it looks like it's handled in the resource provider 👍

Contributor Author

bentsku Jan 29, 2026

Thanks for checking it for me, very much appreciated 🙏 I'll merge so that we can give the fix to the customer, but I'll keep this trick in mind next time!

bentsku merged commit 37780be into main

46 of 48 checks passed

bentsku deleted the route53-record-set-cfn-update branch

January 29, 2026 18:53

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

simonrw simonrw approved these changes

giograno Awaiting requested review from giograno giograno is a code owner

pinzon Awaiting requested review from pinzon pinzon is a code owner

dominikschubert Awaiting requested review from dominikschubert dominikschubert is a code owner

Labels

aws:route53 docs: skip notes: skip semver: minor