Use TestContainers for AWS Local Stack

[hishamco]

No description provided.

[hishamco]

@Skrypt, I think this is ready to merge. Regarding your PR #19014, you could use TestContainers instead if you have some time, or I will do it once it's done from your side

[hishamco]

Next, I will address the functional tests

[Skrypt]

We still need to be able to trigger this manually from CI

[hishamco]

Yep, but we don't want all the steps

[Piedone]

Also, we still should only run these tests only on PR approve automatically, not for every workflow. It's wasteful, since commits should basically never break these tests, so enough to run them just before PR merge.

[hishamco]

No action needed here if there's an issue with using TestContainers as I understand from the comments underneath

[Skrypt]

For the other PR you can always create a PR that is branched on top of my PR branch.

[hishamco]

FYI

https://docs.localstack.cloud/aws/integrations/continuous-integration/github-actions/#running-localstack-on-windows-runners

[hishamco]

It works fine locally if you have Docker

[Skrypt]

This PR looks good although @Piedone really wanted that we use S3Mock because it is lighter in size and executes faster. There is a Java version but no C# one on Testcontainers. Also, let's keep the integration_tests.yml file and nothing else, I don't think @Piedone will like it.

[hishamco]

When the build trigger, I didn't notice any delay

[Skrypt]

That's 1min 55 seconds execution time added on every PR.

[Piedone]

Yep. This pulls in everything from AWS. We just need S3.

[hishamco]

I will check I remembered there's an option to specify the service, such as S3 for instance, but I need to make sure

[Piedone]

We can do that if and when we'll do that. No need to waste time until that uncertain future.

[hishamco]

This PR based on the meeting feedback, but you or Jasmin can discuss that as a topic in the upcoming meeting

[Piedone]

At this stage, this PR makes things worse in two ways, what Jasmin and I pointed out here. There's no need to discuss this at the meeting, especially not among the two of us, since we're in agreement. It's you who needs to reflect on the feedback.

[hishamco]

Don't get me wrong. I understand your feedback very well :) But it would be nice if @Skrypt mentioned the concern in the last meeting - to save the time -

Based on the discussion, @sebastienros suggested using TestContainers, which is why I submitted the PR, but not forcing acceptance of it

[Skrypt]

I could not raise a concern not knowing which Docker image is available from testcontainer. I asked questions in that meeting and I said I would try ; which is what you did here. Now, if that makes things worst now we know. Can't know without trying. Thanks for doing the work and saving me time. Now we know that we should'nt assume that testcontainer is better all the time.