Deployment failed: MissingRequiredParameter: Missing required key 'functionId' in params #2307
Comments
|
I ran |
|
Hey @cabcookie, could you try bumping the package version to beta which should contain the latest changes and re-run the sandbox. |
|
I created a separate sandbox to ensure I can reproduce the error if you come up with a recommendation. My simplified schema looks like this: import { type ClientSchema, a, defineData } from "@aws-amplify/backend";
const schema = a.schema({
Activity: a
.model({
owner: a.string().authorization([a.allow.owner().to(["read", "delete"])]),
notionId: a.integer(),
notes: a.string(),
forProjects: a.manyToMany("Projects", {
relationName: "ProjectActivity",
}),
forMeeting: a.belongsTo("Meeting"),
finishedOn: a.datetime(),
})
.authorization([a.allow.owner()]),
});
export type Schema = ClientSchema<typeof schema>;
export const data = defineData({
schema,
authorizationModes: {
defaultAuthorizationMode: "userPool",
},
});Now, when I add a property to my model (e.g., and ran I tried to understand what changed between the versions and can't spot what change could impact the sandbox to successfully making the changes now. |
|
I removed the new property. The sandbox recognized the change on the schema and tried to implement the changes again and failed with the same error message: |
|
As I seem to have a working sandbox I compared the 2 When comparing the 2 configuration files, these are the differences (comparing the failing configuration to the working configuration): Deleted:
Updated:
Added:
I guess this is because of the "failing" configuration has been created with a previous version, and the new sandbox has been created using these versions: I have no idea if this impacts the behaviour and causing the problem though |
|
Hey @cabcookie, thank you for providing this detailed information. I'm going to transfer this over to our API repository for better assistance 🙂. |
|
Hey @cabcookie, We aim to explore this issue further. Could you possibly join a call with us to delve deeper into the issue? |
|
Hey @cabcookie, Are you still facing this issue in the latest version? |
|
@AnilMaktala See this issue with |
|
I saw this issue again today in my sandbox environment. Had to delete and recreate it. I am using the versions mentioned by @pkubat |
... this? |
|
Yes exactly @asanobm |
|
Yes, I've had that same experience multiple times. In the end, the only solutions were either to recreate the sandbox or reset the data structure to its original state and try again. I apologize for not being of much help. It seems like there might be a bug. It would be a good idea to create a bug report. npx ampx info
System:
OS: macOS 14.4.1
CPU: (10) arm64 Apple M1 Max
Memory: 22.71 GB / 64.00 GB
Shell: /bin/zsh
Binaries:
Node: 18.20.2 - ~/.nodebrew/current/bin/node
Yarn: undefined - undefined
npm: 10.8.0 - ~/workspace/fleeklounge/amplify-next-template/node_modules/.bin/npm
pnpm: undefined - undefined
NPM Packages:
@aws-amplify/backend: 1.0.2
@aws-amplify/backend-cli: 1.0.3
aws-amplify: 6.3.2
aws-cdk: 2.142.0
aws-cdk-lib: 2.142.0
typescript: 5.4.5
AWS environment variables:
AWS_STS_REGIONAL_ENDPOINTS = regional
AWS_NODEJS_CONNECTION_REUSE_ENABLED = 1
AWS_SDK_LOAD_CONFIG = 1
No CDK environment variables |
|
Hello. The same error occurred today as well. After trying various methods, I updated the amplify CLI and it seems to have resolved the issue. 
|
|
@asanobm I seem to have gotten the same error today as well. Updating didn't seem to help. |
|
I'm also bumping into this issue on: |
|
Also running into this issue |
|
|
|
The same error occurred as well. I commented out the model defined in resource.ts that I recently changed. After the error disappeared, I uncommented it, and it worked. |
|
also seeing this issue with: Update 8/7: I found an underlying issue by running |
|
Encountering this after schema modifications occasionally. I have to delete and re-seed my sandbox |
|
Run into this as well I've removed "read" permission in auth rule and it started to fail with this functionId error
I'm not using amplify cli for deployments. I couldn't make it work for more standard "environments", rather than ephemeral sandboxes. It was conflicting with some environment-specific CDK resources. So the deployment still works with a full deployment cycle, when CDK CLI has no If anybody wants to try it, this is the cdk command I'm using cdk deploy --ci --all --output .amplify/artifacts/cdk.out --context amplify-backend-namespace=yourAmplifyAppId --context amplify-backend-name=master --require-approval never --context amplify-backend-type=branch --profile YourAwsSSOProfile-dev --hotswap-fallback --method=direct --watch --context secretLastUpdated=1718888347200 --debug |
|
Calling the sandbox with @treewhopper can you explain a bit how you identified the issue using the debug function? It might be super helpful to reproduce the error and fix it in my environment when it comes up or for the Amplify team to fix it entirely. [1] |
|
I haven't been able to repro this either. Can folks who have been able to repro confirm that they have completely wiped |
|
Just wanted to comment and say that I was having the same issue as everyone else.
I added a new field to the Composer model. Composer: a
.model({
id: a.id().required(),
editionId: a.id().required(),
name: a.string().required(),
birthDate: a.string(),
deathDate: a.string(),
sex: a.string(),
gender: a.string(),
race: a.string(), //<--- This Field Was Added
country: a.string(),
//relationships && special aws data
sectionEntries: a.hasMany('SectionEntryComposer', ['composerId', 'composerEditionId']),
sectionEntryContents: a.hasMany('SectionEntryContentComposer', ['composerId', 'composerEditionId']),
books: a.hasMany('BookComposer', ['composerId', 'composerEditionId']),
createdAt: a.datetime(),
updatedAt: a.datetime(),
})
.identifier(['id', 'editionId'])
.secondaryIndexes((index) => [
index("editionId").queryField("listComposersByEditionId"),
])
.authorization(allow => [
allow.groups(['dev', 'admin']),
allow.groups(['staff']).to(['create', 'read', 'update']),
allow.authenticated().to(['read']),
]),
batchCreateComposers: a
.mutation()
.arguments({
editionId: a.id().required(),
items: a.json().required(),
})
.authorization(allow => [
allow.authenticated(),
])
.handler(a.handler.custom({
entry: './batch-create/Composer.js',
dataSource: a.ref('Composer'),
}))
.returns(a.json()),Oddly enough, the table did update (I checked in DynamoDB), however, when I tried to run the listComposers query, it would tell me that the 'race' field I added (and could see in DynamoDB) didn't exist. Anyway, these were my initial dependencies. "devDependencies": {
"@aws-amplify/backend": "^1.0.4",
"@aws-amplify/backend-cli": "^1.2.2",
"aws-cdk": "^2.151.0",
"aws-cdk-lib": "^2.151.0",
"constructs": "^10.3.0"
}And I updated them to: "devDependencies": {
"@aws-amplify/backend": "^1.0.5",
"@aws-amplify/backend-cli": "^1.2.3",
"aws-cdk": "^2.153.0",
"aws-cdk-lib": "^2.153.0",
"constructs": "^10.3.0"
}I reran the sandbox, and it seemed to work. [DEBUG] 2024-08-20T16:51:33.285Z: {
"compilerOptions": {
"target": "es2022",
"module": "es2022",
"moduleResolution": "bundler",
"resolveJsonModule": true,
"esModuleInterop": true,
"forceConsistentCasingInFileNames": true,
"strict": true,
"skipLibCheck": true,
"paths": {
"$amplify/*": [
"../.amplify/generated/*"
]
},
"allowSyntheticDefaultImports": true,
"resolvePackageJsonExports": true,
"resolvePackageJsonImports": true,
"useDefineForClassFields": true,
"noImplicitAny": true,
"noImplicitThis": true,
"strictNullChecks": true,
"strictFunctionTypes": true,
"strictBindCallApply": true,
"strictPropertyInitialization": true,
"alwaysStrict": true,
"useUnknownInCatchVariables": true
},
"files": [
"./backend.ts",
"./auth/resource.ts",
"./auth/post-confirmation/handler.ts",
"./auth/post-confirmation/resource.ts",
"./data/resource.ts",
"./data/add-user-to-group/handler.ts",
"./data/add-user-to-group/resource.ts",
"./data/remove-user-from-group/handler.ts",
"./data/remove-user-from-group/resource.ts"
]
}I'm not sure if the issue still persists, but the next time I make a change, I'll come back and update this comment. |
|
I still see this issue. Please see #2770 for details on my reproduction. |
|
It happened to me today. I just added |
|
This issue is still happening to me from time to time. I will walk you through what happened to me this morning and how I fixed it without recreating the whole sandbox environment. I have a schema with these 2 models: RelationshipType: a
.model({
owner: a
.string()
.authorization((allow) => [allow.owner().to(["read", "delete"])]),
name: a.string().required(),
people: a.hasMany("PersonRelationship", "typeId"),
})
.authorization((allow) => [allow.owner()]),
PersonRelationship: a
.model({
owner: a
.string()
.authorization((allow) => [allow.owner().to(["read", "delete"])]),
personId: a.id().required(),
person: a.belongsTo("Person", "personId"),
typeId: a.id().required(),
type: a.belongsTo("RelationshipType", "typeId"),
relatedPersonId: a.id(),
relatedPerson: a.belongsTo("Person", "relatedPersonId"),
date: a.date(),
})
.authorization((allow) => [allow.owner()]),I wanted to add the property This is how my model looks like after the change: RelationshipType: a
.model({
owner: a
.string()
.authorization((allow) => [allow.owner().to(["read", "delete"])]),
name: a.string().required(),
people: a.hasMany("PersonRelationship", "typeId"),
nameOfAnniversary: a.string(), // this is the property I added
})
.authorization((allow) => [allow.owner()]),
PersonRelationship: a
.model({
owner: a
.string()
.authorization((allow) => [allow.owner().to(["read", "delete"])]),
personId: a.id().required(),
person: a.belongsTo("Person", "personId"),
typeId: a.id().required(),
type: a.belongsTo("RelationshipType", "typeId"),
relatedPersonId: a.id(),
relatedPerson: a.belongsTo("Person", "relatedPersonId"),
date: a.date(),
})
.authorization((allow) => [allow.owner()]),Now, to ensure I do not need to recreate the whole sandbox I just removed the affected model and its relations: // RelationshipType: a
// .model({
// owner: a
// .string()
// .authorization((allow) => [allow.owner().to(["read", "delete"])]),
// name: a.string().required(),
// people: a.hasMany("PersonRelationship", "typeId"),
// nameOfAnniversary: a.string(),
// })
// .authorization((allow) => [allow.owner()]),
PersonRelationship: a
.model({
owner: a
.string()
.authorization((allow) => [allow.owner().to(["read", "delete"])]),
personId: a.id().required(),
person: a.belongsTo("Person", "personId"),
typeId: a.id().required(),
// type: a.belongsTo("RelationshipType", "typeId"),
relatedPersonId: a.id(),
relatedPerson: a.belongsTo("Person", "relatedPersonId"),
date: a.date(),
})
.authorization((allow) => [allow.owner()]),The sandbox environment applied the changes. After that, I re-introduced the model and its relations and the change went through successfully. Because of these changes I only lost data in the I hope this helps some of you to reduce the pain. |
|
Hey @cabcookie, Thank you for providing the additional information. We are actively investigating this issue and will update the ticket as soon as we have a resolution. |
|
I've been investigating this issue trying to find the root cause. It appears the issue only affects models with group or owner auth. If you have any other findings please to continue to update this issue. |
|
I have not been able to identify the root cause of the issue yet, but I am now confident this issue will only arise when using CDK hotswap. That means this issue will not occur in production environment and is limited to sandbox. The current work around is to recreate the sandbox or remove the table causing the issue and then restore the table. We recognize that this workaround isn't ideal and we are continuing to investigate the root cause. |
A better workaround is to update stack without hotswap option, which fixes the problem and then hot swaps continue to work, I described above. However, amplify doesn't expose that functionality via native CDK to the users, which I think is a missing feature. If users had option to make cdk updates via native cdk cli, it'd opened additional options for development. My use case is a permanent dev environments. I have some extra resources that take forever to create (dns, ses, acm), thus default amplify sandboxes is not ideal. I would make native use of cdk cli official, there is not much to configure. The only real problem is credential update time cycle. |
|
When i run into this issue it is enough to just comment out one of my custom resolvers, deploy, add it back in and deploy again instead of removing a table or even recreating the sandbox, which is much more cumbersome. |
…n function on the first page (#31406) ### Issue # (if applicable) aws-amplify/amplify-category-api#2307 ### Reason for this change Hotswap for AppSync functions sometimes fails with `Deployment failed: MissingRequiredParameter: Missing required key 'functionId' in params`. This is because the SDK list function only retrieves the first page. In APIs where there are many functions it is possible for the hotswapped function to not be contained in the first page. This results in the previously mentioned error because the `functionId` is never retrieved. ### Description of changes List all AppSync functions for a given API by iterating through the pages with the `nextToken`. The change was modeled after a similar request [here](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/1e203753519e10e19ef0db87e1382377b609bcaa/packages/aws-cdk/lib/api/evaluate-cloudformation-template.ts#L23-L36). ### Description of how you validated changes * Unit tests * Integ tests * Manual testing in app from aws-amplify/amplify-category-api#2307 ### Checklist - [x] My code adheres to the [CONTRIBUTING GUIDE](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md) and [DESIGN GUIDELINES](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/docs/DESIGN_GUIDELINES.md) ---- *By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license*
|
Hi @cabcookie and @thomasoehri , This issue has been resolved in https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/releases/tag/v2.159.0 version. Please upgrade your lib to v2.159 version and let us know the results. |
|
This issue is now closed. Comments on closed issues are hard for our team to see. |
|
This issue is now closed. Comments on closed issues are hard for our team to see. |
and others
Environment information
Description
Hello, I run into an issue with my sandbox environment. It happened twice to me in the last 2 weeks and I had to delete and recreate my sandbox which has been quite cumbersome (including recreation of demo data).
I login to my account using SSO and the profile org-data-amplify. My session is valid for a couple of hours and then I need to sign in again. Yesterday, I launched my sandbox environment with
npx amplify sandbox --profile org-data-amplifyand forgot to stop it. So, today I got back to VS Code (I didn't restart it) and stopped the sandbox and ran the command again. Now, I tried to make a change to my data model. I changed my Activity schema fromto
Amplify identified correctly a file update, synthesized the template and tried to deploy the update but then failed with the mentioned error message. Here is the output in my console:
[Sandbox] Triggered due to a file update event: /Users/carskoch/Development/personal-crm/amplify/data/resource.ts
✨ Synthesis time: 3.86s
amplify-personalcrm-carskoch-sandbox-63e4bb09d0: deploying... [1/1]
✨ hotswapping resources:
✨ AWS::AppSync::FunctionConfiguration 'MutationcreateActivityauth0Function'
✨ AWS::AppSync::FunctionConfiguration 'MutationupdateActivityauth0Function'
✨ AWS::AppSync::GraphQLSchema 'uevvie4lgje2pegsontu5uvbwaGraphQLSchema'
✨ Contents of S3 Bucket 'amplify-personalcrm-carsk-amplifydataamplifycodege-8slq063fvosf'
✨ Contents of S3 Bucket 'amplify-personalcrm-carsk-amplifydataamplifycodege-8slq063fvosf' hotswapped!
✨ AWS::AppSync::GraphQLSchema 'uevvie4lgje2pegsontu5uvbwaGraphQLSchema' hotswapped!
The CloudFormation deployment has failed. Find more information in the CloudFormation AWS Console for this stack.
Caused By: ❌ Deployment failed: MissingRequiredParameter: Missing required key 'functionId' in params
It mentions I should verify CloudFormation. However, CloudFormation is not showing any events.
How can I fix this issue?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: