Nested arrays in SecurityGroupIngress property of EC2_SecurityGroup

[cfndsl]

Nested arrays in SecurityGroupIngress property of EC2_SecurityGroup

[howech]

Try this

EC2_SecurityGroup("SampleGroup") {
  VpcId Ref("VPC")
  GroupDescription "My group"
  SecurityGroupIngress { IpProtocol "tcp" }
}

Renders:

"SampleGroup": {
  "Properties":{
    "VpcId":"asdfasdf",
    "GroupDescription":"Sample group",
    "SecurityGroupIngress":[{"IpProtocol":"tcp"}]
  },
  "Type":"AWS::EC2::SecurityGroup"}}}
}

[howech]

(If you insist on wanting to pass in a hash to the SecurityGroupIngress property, effectively bypassing cfndsl's type contructor for the property, you have to do it this way

EC2_SecurityGroup("SampleGroup"){
    VpcId Ref("VpcId")
    GroupDescription "Sample group"
    SecurityGroupIngress( {:IpProtocol=>"tcp"} )
  }

There is lots of weirdness going on here. First, array type property declarations are designed to append a single item on to the list of items. If you pass it an array, it dutifully pushes the array on to the collected list of objects. Also, when you use this form, cfndsl assumes that you know what you are doing, sometimes this is a good thing in that it lets you pass in a hash representing an AWS type that has not been fully supported in cfndsl yet, but often, it just confuses people.

Another part of the weirdness has to do with ruby. Ruby lets you make function calls on a single argument without explicit parenthesis. This is what your original SecurityGroupIngess declaration was doing, with an array as an argument. However, you cannot pass a hash this way, as the ruby interpreter thinks that you are passing a code block. This is why my second example has explicit paranthesis...

[stevenjack]

@tbenade did this help you out?

[tbenade]

My apologies @stevenjack & @howech I have not had a try yet. I will look at it shortly. One thing I would say is the types yaml https://github.com/stevenjack/cfndsl/blob/master/lib/cfndsl/aws_types.yaml states the expectation is an array, hence me wanting to use an array.

Given CloudFormation supports an array in the API will the DSL support defining more than one rule?

[yumpy]

NetworkInterfaces in EC_Instance is of a similar format and this seem to generate without the nested array.

AWS_EC2_Instance("myInstance") {

  ImageId "myAMI"
  InstanceType "m3.medium"
  KeyName "myKey"

  NetworkInterfaces [
    {
      "AssociatePublicIpAddress" => "true",
      "DeleteOnTermination"      => "true",
      "Description"              => "Primary network interface",
      "DeviceIndex"              => 0,
      "GroupSet"                 => ["mySG1"],
      "SubnetId"                 => "mySubnet1"
    },
    {
      "AssociatePublicIpAddress" => "true",
      "DeleteOnTermination"      => "true",
      "Description"              => "Secondary network interface",
      "DeviceIndex"              => 1,
      "GroupSet"                 => ["mySG2"],
      "SubnetId"                 => "mySubnet2"
    }
  ]
}

generates

      "myInstance" : {
         "Type" : "AWS::EC2::Instance",
         "Properties" : {
            "NetworkInterfaces" : [
               {
                  "DeviceIndex" : 0,
                  "SubnetId" : "mySubnet1",
                  "Description" : "Primary network interface",
                  "GroupSet" : [
                     "mySG1"
                  ],
                  "AssociatePublicIpAddress" : "true",
                  "DeleteOnTermination" : "true"
               },
               {
                  "SubnetId" : "mySubnet2",
                  "Description" : "Secondary network interface",
                  "DeviceIndex" : 1,
                  "GroupSet" : [
                     "mySG2"
                  ],
                  "DeleteOnTermination" : "true",
                  "AssociatePublicIpAddress" : "true"
               }
            ],
            "KeyName" : "myKey",
            "ImageId" : "myAMI",
            "InstanceType" : "m3.medium"
         }

from aws_types.yaml

  "AWS::EC2::SecurityGroup" :
    Properties:
     ....
     SecurityGroupIngress: [ EC2SecurityGroupRule ]
     SecurityGroupEgress: [ EC2SecurityGroupRule ]


  "AWS::EC2::Instance" :
   Properties:
    ....
    NetworkInterfaces : [ NetworkInterfaceType ]
    ....

[yumpy]

As mentioned in #109 my workaround (for the moment) is to remove the [ ... ] from aws_types.yaml

  "AWS::EC2::SecurityGroup" :
    Properties:
     ....
     SecurityGroupIngress:  EC2SecurityGroupRule 
     SecurityGroupEgress:  EC2SecurityGroupRule 

then I can use

  EC2_SecurityGroup("mySG") {
    VpcId "myVPC"
    SecurityGroupIngress [
      {
        "CidrIp"     => "10.0.0.0/8",
        "IpProtocol" => "tcp",
        "FromPort"   => "22",
        "ToPort"     => "2"
      },
      {
        "CidrIp"     => "10.0.0.0/8",
        "IpProtocol" => "tcp",
        "FromPort"   => "80",
        "ToPort"     => "80"
      },
      {
        "CidrIp"     => "10.0.0.0/8",
        "IpProtocol" => "tcp",
        "FromPort"   => "443",
        "ToPort"     => "443"
      },
      {
        "CidrIp"     => "10.0.0.0/8",
        "IpProtocol" => "tcp",
        "FromPort"   => "3389",
        "ToPort"     => "3389"
      },      
    ]
  }

[yumpy]

I've looked at the comments in #107 but am still having problems with SecurityGroupIngress/SecurityGroupEgress where a list of rules is to be applied. (see previous comment in this issue for an example of what I'm trying to do).

[windlass]

I admit I am having problems with this too. A list of rules in Ingress/Egress only works if I do what @yumpy is doing above and remove the brackets around EC2SecurityGroupRule. I'm not sure if I'm working around a real problem or just not seeing a Better Way to pass a list of rules to a security group.

[yumpy]

I've still not found a way to get this to work without removing the brackets around EC2SecurityGroupRule. If anyone has managed to get it working please could you post an example here. Thanks.

@yumpy Here's how I got it to work with a single entry:

SecurityGroupIngress( { :IpProtocol=>"tcp", :FromPort=>"22", :ToPort=>"22", :CidrIp=>"0.0.0.0/0" } )

[yumpy]

updated due to mistake

Thanks @rmurphy-stelligent. That works well. Any ideas on multiple entries?

eg to generate

                "SecurityGroupIngress": [
                    {
                        "CidrIp": "0.0.0.0/0",
                        "FromPort": 22,
                        "IpProtocol": "tcp",
                        "ToPort": 22
                    },
                    {
                        "CidrIp": "0.0.0.0/0",
                        "FromPort": 3389,
                        "IpProtocol": "tcp",
                        "ToPort": 3389
                    }
                ],

[johnf]

I think I may have identified the issue here. aws_types has the following entries

"AWS::EC2::SecurityGroup" :
  Properties:
   SecurityGroupIngress: [ EC2SecurityGroupRule ]
"AWS::ElasticLoadBalancing::LoadBalancer" :
  Properties:
    Listeners: [ Listener ]

So you would expect the following to work

EC2_SecurityGroup('WebSecurityGroup') { 
  SecurityGroupIngress [
     EC2SecurityGroupRule {
      IpProtocol                 'tcp'
      ToPort                     '80'
    } 
    EC2SecurityGroupRule {
      IpProtocol 'tcp'
      ToPort     '22'
     },
  ] 
}

ElasticLoadBalancing_LoadBalancer('WebLoadBalancer') {
  Listeners [
    Listener {
      LoadBalancerPort 80
    } 
    Listener {
      LoadBalancerPort 80
    },
  ]
}

The LoadBalancer works fine but the SecurityGroup complains about EC2SecurityGroupRule being not found.

The issue is at https://github.com/stevenjack/cfndsl/blob/master/lib/cfndsl/CloudFormationTemplate.rb#L100-L129
it takes Listeners converts to singular and expects the internal entry to be called Listener. This means you can make the first example work by doing the following

EC2_SecurityGroup('WebSecurityGroup') { 
  SecurityGroupIngress [
     SecurityGroupIngress {
      IpProtocol                 'tcp'
      ToPort                     '80'
    } 
    SecurityGroupIngress {
      IpProtocol 'tcp'
      ToPort     '22'
     },
  ] 
}

So I'm not sure here what is actually wanted. Does aws_types.yaml define what things should be called. So should it be called EC2SecurityGroupRole or is it always just the singular?

[johnf]

I have a feeling we should actually use EC2SecurityGroupRole since I get a wierd double show up when I try the other way. I have some code locally to make that work if it is what we want.

[yumpy]

@johnf thanks for running with this. I look forward to your PR being merged.

FYI 0.8.3 implemented breaking changes for those who used the workaround I mentioned in December of 2015. Be ready to update the syntax before upgrading.