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

can not run deployment if dynamodb already exists #132

Open
SPlanzer opened this issue Oct 5, 2020 · 1 comment
Open

can not run deployment if dynamodb already exists #132

SPlanzer opened this issue Oct 5, 2020 · 1 comment

Comments

@SPlanzer
Copy link
Contributor

SPlanzer commented Oct 5, 2020

If the dynamodb table already exists the deployment can not be run.

This issue here summaries the problem and frustrations well
serverless/serverless#3183

The solution is most likely to break components out and only run the dynamodb component deployment once. However what happens in this case when the database is to be expanded?

@Mehds
Copy link

Mehds commented Mar 1, 2021

The sense I got from going through the previous thread is that:

  1. As you said, separating components and using Fn::ImportValue to grab the relevant information from the separate stack is recommended.
  2. When the DB needs to get expanded, you will have manual work to do exporting the data / reimporting it, as you'll still have to delete the existing table for the sls deploy to work on your db stack.
  3. Some users seem to have found workarounds with Ansible / Terraform
  4. Cloudformation also now has support for importing resources into a stack: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSCloudFormation/latest/UserGuide/resource-import-existing-stack.html

So all in all, there doesn't seem to be a path forward using a pure serverless solution for this based on the rationale for closing the issue you linked: serverless/serverless#3183 (comment)

I'm on board with that logic, I just wish these limitations were more clearly stated before we commited on serverless with our project so we could plan for them a bit better

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants