AWS Api Gateway proxy resource using Cloudformation? - amazon-s3

I'm trying to proxy an S3 bucket configured as a website from an API Gateway endpoint. I configured an endpoint successfully using the console, but I am unable to recreate the configuration using Cloudformation.
After lots of trial and error and guessing, I've come up with the following CF stack template that gets me pretty close:
Resources:
Api:
Type: 'AWS::ApiGateway::RestApi'
Properties:
Name: ApiDocs
Resource:
Type: 'AWS::ApiGateway::Resource'
Properties:
ParentId: !GetAtt Api.RootResourceId
RestApiId: !Ref Api
PathPart: '{proxy+}'
RootMethod:
Type: 'AWS::ApiGateway::Method'
Properties:
HttpMethod: ANY
ResourceId: !GetAtt Api.RootResourceId
RestApiId: !Ref Api
AuthorizationType: NONE
Integration:
IntegrationHttpMethod: ANY
Type: HTTP_PROXY
Uri: 'http://my-bucket.s3-website-${AWS::Region}.amazonaws.com/'
PassthroughBehavior: WHEN_NO_MATCH
IntegrationResponses:
- StatusCode: 200
ProxyMethod:
Type: 'AWS::ApiGateway::Method'
Properties:
HttpMethod: ANY
ResourceId: !Ref Resource
RestApiId: !Ref Api
AuthorizationType: NONE
RequestParameters:
method.request.path.proxy: true
Integration:
CacheKeyParameters:
- 'method.request.path.proxy'
RequestParameters:
integration.request.path.proxy: 'method.request.path.proxy'
IntegrationHttpMethod: ANY
Type: HTTP_PROXY
Uri: 'http://my-bucket.s3-website-${AWS::Region}.amazonaws.com/{proxy}'
PassthroughBehavior: WHEN_NO_MATCH
IntegrationResponses:
- StatusCode: 200
Deployment:
DependsOn:
- RootMethod
- ProxyMethod
Type: 'AWS::ApiGateway::Deployment'
Properties:
RestApiId: !Ref Api
StageName: dev
Using this template I can successfully get the root of the bucket website, but the proxy resource gives me a 500:
curl -i https://abcdef.execute-api.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/dev/index.html
HTTP/1.1 500 Internal Server Error
Content-Type: application/json
Content-Length: 36
Connection: keep-alive
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:36:02 GMT
x-amzn-RequestId: 6014a809-de91-11e7-95e4-dda6e24d156a
X-Cache: Error from cloudfront
Via: 1.1 8f6f9aba914cc74bcbbf3c57e10df26a.cloudfront.net (CloudFront)
X-Amz-Cf-Id: TlOCX3eemHfY0aiVk9MLCp4qFzUEn5I0QUTIPkh14o6-nh7YAfUn5Q==
{"message": "Internal server error"}
I have no idea how to debug that 500.
To track down what may be wrong, I've compared the output of aws apigateway get-resource on the resource I created manually in the console (which is working) with the one Cloudformation made (which isn't). The resources look exactly alike. The output of get-method however, is subtly different, and I'm not sure it's possible to make them exactly the same using Cloudformation.
Working method configuration:
{
"apiKeyRequired": false,
"httpMethod": "ANY",
"methodIntegration": {
"integrationResponses": {
"200": {
"responseTemplates": {
"application/json": null
},
"statusCode": "200"
}
},
"passthroughBehavior": "WHEN_NO_MATCH",
"cacheKeyParameters": [
"method.request.path.proxy"
],
"requestParameters": {
"integration.request.path.proxy": "method.request.path.proxy"
},
"uri": "http://muybucket.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/{proxy}",
"httpMethod": "ANY",
"cacheNamespace": "abcdefg",
"type": "HTTP_PROXY"
},
"requestParameters": {
"method.request.path.proxy": true
},
"authorizationType": "NONE"
}
Configuration that doesn't work:
{
"apiKeyRequired": false,
"httpMethod": "ANY",
"methodIntegration": {
"integrationResponses": {
"200": {
"responseParameters": {},
"responseTemplates": {},
"statusCode": "200"
}
},
"passthroughBehavior": "WHEN_NO_MATCH",
"cacheKeyParameters": [
"method.request.path.proxy"
],
"requestParameters": {
"integration.request.path.proxy": "method.request.path.proxy"
},
"uri": "http://mybucket.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/{proxy}",
"httpMethod": "ANY",
"requestTemplates": {},
"cacheNamespace": "abcdef",
"type": "HTTP_PROXY"
},
"requestParameters": {
"method.request.path.proxy": true
},
"requestModels": {},
"authorizationType": "NONE"
}
The differences:
The working configuration has responseTemplates set to "application/json": null. As far as I can tell, there's no way to set a mapping explicitly to null using Cloudformation. My CF method instead just has an empty object here.
My CF method has "responseParameters": {},, while the working configuration does not have responseParameters at all
My CF method has "requestModels": {},, while the working configuration does not have requestModels at all
Comparing the two in the console, they are seemingly exactly the same.
I'm at my wits end here: what am I doing wrong? Is this possible to achieve using Cloudformation?

Answer: The above is correct. I had arrived at this solution through a series of steps, and re-applied the template over and over. Deleting the stack and deploying it anew with this configuration had the desired effect.

Related

How can I create router and load balance service added to traefik via consulCatalog?

I have nextcloud running on bare metal 2 nodes:
node1: 192.168.1.10
node2: 192.168.1.11
In the consul I have defined nextcloud service as such on both the nodes:
{
"service": {
"name": "nextcloud",
"tags": ["nextcloud", "traefik"],
"port": 80,
"check": {
"tcp": "localhost:80",
"args": ["ping", "-c1", "127.0.0.1"],
"interval": "10s",
"status": "passing",
"success_before_passing": 3,
"failures_before_critical": 3
}
}
now this shows up in consul fine:
static config: traefik.yaml
global:
# Send anonymous usage data
sendAnonymousUsage: true
api:
dashboard: true
debug: true
log:
level: DEBUG
entryPoints:
http:
address: ":80"
https:
address: ":443"
serversTransport:
insecureSkipVerify: true
providers:
docker:
endpoint: "unix:///var/run/docker.sock"
exposedByDefault: false
file:
directory: "/config/"
watch: true
consulCatalog:
defaultRule: "Host(`{{ .Name }}.sub.mydomain.com`)"
endpoint:
address: http://127.0.0.1:8500
certificatesResolvers:
linode:
acme:
caServer: https://acme-staging-v02.api.letsencrypt.org/directory
email: myemail#domain.com
storage: acme.json
dnsChallenge:
provider: linode
resolvers:
- "1.1.1.1:53"
- "1.0.0.1:53"
and then dynamic /config/config.yaml:
http:
routers:
nextcloud#consulCatalog:
entryPoints:
- "https"
rule: "Host(`home.sub.mydomain.com`) && Path(`/nextcloud`)"
tls:
certResolver: linode
service: nextcloud
services:
nextcloud:
loadBalancer:
servers:
- url: http://192.168.1.10
- url: http://192.168.1.11
passHostHeader: true
but this shows up as file provider with TLS in instead in addtion to exisiting consulcatalog provider.
and not IP or domain mapped.
actual consulcatalog provider showing up but no tls
I am wondering why my dynamic configuration in http did not updated the nextcloud#consulcatalog and set the https entrypoint.
Any help will be greatly appreciated, I am struggling very hard to get this to work.
I have tried following the docs on traefik but its very confusing specially on the consulcatalog part.
Your configuration is showing up as being defined via the file provider because you are statically defining it in the file at /config/config.yaml.
In order to dynamically retrieve this configuration from Consul, you should not be defining the static config file and instead configure tags on the Consul service registrations that will instruct Traefik to route traffic to your service.
For example:
{
"service": {
"name": "nextcloud",
"tags": [
"nextcloud",
"traefik.enable=true",
"traefik.http.routers.nextcloud.entrypoints=https",
"traefik.http.routers.nextcloud.rule=(Host(`home.sub.mydomain.com`) && Path(`/nextcloud`))",
"traefik.http.routers.nextcloud.tls.certresolver=linode",
"traefik.http.services.nextcloud.loadbalancer.passhostheader=true"
],
"port": 80,
"check": {
"tcp": "localhost:80",
"args": [
"ping",
"-c1",
"127.0.0.1"
],
"interval": "10s",
"status": "passing",
"success_before_passing": 3,
"failures_before_critical": 3
}
}
}
More info can be found on the Routing Configuration docs for Traffic's Consul catalog provider.

Why do I have a Kubernetes api permission problem?

I have a python script that tries to scale a statefulset from inside a pod, but get a forbidden error from the API server. The following yml file shows my role and rolebinding:
apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
Kind: Role
metadata:
name: server-controller
namespace: code-server
roles:
- apiGroups: ["*"]
resources:
- statefulsets
verbs: ["update", "patch"]
---
apiVersion: rbac.authorization.k8s.io/v1
Kind: RoleBinding
metadata:
name: server-controller
namespace: code-server
subjects:
-kind: ServiceAccount
name: server-controller
namespace: code-server
roleRef:
kind: Role
name server-controller
apiGroup: rbac.authorization.k8s.io
The following python code snippet shows my access to the API:
kubernetes.config.load_incluster_config()
app = kubernetes.client.AppsV1Api()
body = {"spec": {"replicas": 1}}
app.patch_namespaced_stateful_set_scale(
name="jim",
namespace="code-server",
body=body)
I get the following error:
kubernetes.client.exceptions.ApiException: (403)
Reason: Forbidden
HTTP response headers: HTTPHeaderDict({'Cache-Control': 'no-cache", 'Content-Type': 'application/json', 'X-Content-Type-Options': 'nosniff', 'Date': 'Fri, 15 Oct 2021 15:25:24 GMT', 'Content-Length': '469'})
HTTP response Body: {
"kind": "Status",
"apiVersion": "v1"
"metadata": {
}
"status": "Failure",
"message": "statefulsets.apps \"jim\" is forbidden: User \"system:serviceaccount:code-server:server-controller\" cannot patch resource \"statefulsets/scale\" in API group \"apps\" in the namespace \"code-server\"",
"reason": "Forbidden",
"details": {
"name": "jim",
"group": "apps",
"kind": "statefulesets"
}
"code": 403
}
The solution was to change "statefulsets" to "statefulsets/scale" in the "resources" field under "role".

Can't Connect to Service via Marathon-lb using DCOS

I recently went through the tutorial for load balancing apps in DCOS using marathon-lb (in the example they balance some nginx containers: https://dcos.io/docs/1.9/networking/marathon-lb/marathon-lb-advanced-tutorial/). I am trying to use this approach to internally load balance my own custom application. The custom app I am using is a play scala app. I have the internal marathon-lb set up and can successfully use it for the nginx container but when I try to use my own docker image I cannot get this to work. I start up my service with my custom image and I can access the service fine by using the IP and port that gets assigned to it (i.e. if the service gets deployed on 10.0.0.0 and is available on port 1234 then curl http://10.0.0.0:1234/ works as expected and I can also make my api calls as defined in my application routes). However, when I try to access the app through the load balancer (curl -i http://marathon-lb-internal.marathon.mesos:10002, where 10002 is the service port) then I get this message:
HTTP/1.0 503 Service Unavailable
Cache-Control: no-cache
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
<html><body><h1>503 Service Unavailable</h1>
No server is available to handle this request.
</body></html>
For reference, here is my json file I'm using to start my custom service:
{
"id": "my-app",
"container": {
"type": "DOCKER",
"docker": {
"image": "my_repo/my_image:1.0.0",
"network": "BRIDGE",
"portMappings": [
{ "hostPort": 0, "containerPort": 9000, "servicePort": 10002, "protocol": "tcp" }
],
"parameters": [
{ "key": "env", "value": "USER_NAME=user" },
{ "key": "env", "value": "USER_PASSWORD=password" }
],
"forcePullImage": true
}
},
"instances": 1,
"cpus": 1,
"mem": 1000,
"healthChecks": [{
"protocol": "HTTP",
"path": "/v1/health",
"portIndex": 0,
"timeoutSeconds": 10,
"gracePeriodSeconds": 10,
"intervalSeconds": 2,
"maxConsecutiveFailures": 10
}],
"labels":{
"HAPROXY_GROUP":"internal"
},
"uris": [ "https://s3.amazonaws.com/my_bucket/my_docker_credentials" ]
}
I had the same problem and found the solution here
marathon-lb health check failing on all spray.io containers
Need to add
"HAPROXY_0_BACKEND_HTTP_HEALTHCHECK_OPTIONS": " http-send-name-header Host\n timeout check {healthCheckTimeoutSeconds}s\n"
To your config so that the REST layer doesn't bark on the health check from marathon

How to parameterize ports in OpenShift JSON Project Template

I'm trying to create a custom project template in OpenShift Origin. The Service configuration specifically, looks like below:
{
"kind": "Service",
"apiVersion": "v1",
"metadata": {
"name": "${NAME}",
"annotations": {
"description": "Exposes and load balances the node.js application pods"
}
},
"spec": {
"ports": [
{
"name": "web",
"port": "${APPLICATION_PORT}",
"targetPort": "${APPLICATION_PORT}",
"protocol": "TCP"
}
],
"selector": {
"name": "${NAME}"
}
}
},
where, APPLICATION_PORT is supplied as a user parameter:
"parameters": [
{
"name": "APPLICATION_PORT",
"displayName": "Application Port",
"description": "The exposed port that will route to the node.js application",
"value": "8000"
},
When I try to use this template to create a project, I get the following error:
spec.ports[0].targetPort: Invalid value: "8000": must be an IANA_SVC_NAME (at most 15 characters, matching regex [a-z0-9]([a-z0-9-]*[a-z0-9])*...
I get a similar error in my DeploymentConfig as well, for the http ports in the liveness and readiness probes:
"readinessProbe": {
"timeoutSeconds": 3,
"initialDelaySeconds": 3,
"httpGet": {
"path": "/Info",
"port": "${APPLICATION_ADMIN_PORT}"
}
},
"livenessProbe": {
"timeoutSeconds": 3,
"initialDelaySeconds": 30,
"httpGet": {
"path": "/Info",
"port": "${APPLICATION_ADMIN_PORT}"
}
},
where, APPLICATION_ADMIN_PORT, again, is user-supplied.
Error:
spec.template.spec.containers[0].livenessProbe.httpGet.port: Invalid value: "8001": must be an IANA_SVC_NAME...
spec.template.spec.containers[0].readinessProbe.httpGet.port: Invalid value: "8001": must be an IANA_SVC_NAME...
I've been following https://blog.openshift.com/part-2-creating-a-template-a-technical-walkthrough/ to understand templates, and it, unfortunately, does not have any examples of ports being parameterized anywhere.
It almost seems as if strings are not allowed as the values of these ports. Is that the case? What's the right way to parameterize these values? Should I switch to YAML?
Versions:
OpenShift Master: v1.1.6-3-g9c5694f
Kubernetes Master: v1.2.0-36-g4a3f9c5
Edit 1: I tried the same configuration in YAML format, and got the same error. So, JSON vs YAML is not the issue.
Unfortunately it is not currently possible to parameterize non-string field values: https://docs.openshift.org/latest/dev_guide/templates.html#writing-parameters
" Parameters can be referenced by placing values in the form "${PARAMETER_NAME}" in place of any string field in the template."
Templates are in the process of being upstreamed to Kubernetes and this limitation is being addressed there:
https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/docs/proposals/templates.md
The proposal is being implemented in PRs 25622 and 25293 in the kubernetes repo.
edit:
Templates now support non-string parameters as documented here: https://docs.openshift.org/latest/dev_guide/templates.html#writing-parameters
I don't know if this option was available in 2016 when this post was added but now you can use ${{PARAMETER_NAME}} to parameterize non-string field values.
spec:
externalTrafficPolicy: Cluster
ports:
- name: ${NAME}-port
port: ${{PORT_PARAMETER}}
protocol: TCP
targetPort: ${{PORT_PARAMETER}}
sessionAffinity: None
This may a be a bad practice but I'm using sed to substitute int parameters:
cat template.yaml | sed -e 's/PORT/8080/g' > proxy-template-subst.yaml
Template:
apiVersion: template.openshift.io/v1
kind: Template
objects:
- apiVersion: v1
kind: Service
metadata:
name: ${NAME}
namespace: ${NAMESPACE}
spec:
externalTrafficPolicy: Cluster
ports:
- name: ${NAME}-port
port: PORT
protocol: TCP
targetPort: PORT
sessionAffinity: None
type: NodePort
status:
loadBalancer: {}
parameters:
- description: Desired service name
name: NAME
required: true
value: need_real_value_here
- description: IP adress
name: IP
required: true
value: need_real_value_here
- description: namespace where to deploy
name: NAMESPACE
required: true
value: need_real_value_here

Fine uploader request not working from vb6

I am using below Policy format and creating a application/json format with policy base 64 and signature sha base 64 but getting
"Error attempting to parse signature response: SyntaxError: Unexpected token s"
Can you suggest where I am wrong:
strToPolicy = "{
""expiration"": ""2015-01-01T12:00:00.000Z"",
""conditions"": [
{""bucket"": manishtests3.s3-website-ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com },
{""acl"": ""public-read"" },
{""key"": my access key id},
{""x-amz-meta-qqfilename"": Search.png},
]
}"
Your policy appears to simply be malformed JSON... Take note of the formatting below:
{
"conditions": [
{
"bucket": "manishtests3.s3-website-ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com"
},
{
"acl": "public-read"
},
{
"key": "my access key id"
},
{
"x-amz-meta-qqfilename": "Search.png"
}
],
"expiration": "2015-01-01T12:00:00.000Z"
}
For more information there is also a specific example of Amazon S3 Policy Format with regard to leveraging Fine Uploader and Amazon S3.