deps(smus): Upgrade sdk v2 to sdk v3 - DataZoneCustomClient #8411

PotatoWKY · 2025-12-11T01:22:56Z

Summary

This PR migrates the DataZone custom API client from the deprecated AWS SDK v2 generator pattern to standalone AWS SDK v3-compatible packages. This migration is required as part of the broader AWS Toolkit repository migration from SDK v2 to v3.

The AWS Toolkit VSCode repository is deprecating the centralized generateServiceClient.ts script that generates TypeScript clients from service JSON definitions. The SageMaker Unified Studio (SMUS) team currently uses this v2 generator for DataZone Custom API.

Solution

Created standalone package @amzn/datazone-custom-client with SDK v3 patterns
Updated DataZoneCustomClientHelper to use SDK v3 client initialization and Command pattern
Migrated from client.methodName().promise() to client.send(new Command()) pattern
Updated credential provider to use SDK v3 async credential provider function
Updated imports to use new standalone package types and commands
Updated test files to mock SDK v3 send() method instead of v2 .promise() pattern
Removed dependency for DataZone Custom API on the deprecated generateServiceClient.ts script

Treat all work as PUBLIC. Private feature/x branches will not be squash-merged at release time.
Your code changes must meet the guidelines in CONTRIBUTING.md.
License: I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

github-actions · 2025-12-11T01:32:37Z

This pull request implements a feat or fix, so it must include a changelog entry (unless the fix is for an unreleased feature). Review the changelog guidelines.
- Note: beta or "experiment" features that have active users should announce fixes in the changelog.
- If this is not a feature or fix, use an appropriate type from the title guidelines. For example, telemetry-only changes should use the telemetry type.

vpbhargav

Thanks for making these changes! How are we testing and ensuring there is no regression?

vpbhargav · 2025-12-11T19:23:33Z

packages/core/src/sagemakerunifiedstudio/shared/client/datazoneCustomClientHelper.ts

+                const awsCredentialProvider = async () => {
+                    const credentials = await this.credentialProvider.getCredentials()
+                    return {
+                        accessKeyId: credentials.accessKeyId,
+                        secretAccessKey: credentials.secretAccessKey,
+                        sessionToken: credentials.sessionToken,
+                        expiration: credentials.expiration,
+                    }
+                }


This wrapper needed? Unable to pass this.credentialProvider directly to the clientConfig? Seems like it but just want to confirm.

Yeah it is needed. I am not Typescript pro, but here is my understanding:

passing this.credentialProvider would only pass the method,

with the wrapper it also passes the instance

we would need the correct instance to get the credentials
Inspired by @liuzulin:
https://github.com/aws/aws-toolkit-vscode/blame/20a5e850bc483e0d649eddf1880014e2873ca565/packages/core/src/sagemakerunifiedstudio/shared/client/s3Client.ts#L159

vpbhargav · 2025-12-11T19:28:48Z

packages/core/src/test/sagemakerunifiedstudio/shared/client/datazoneCustomClientHelper.test.ts

-                listDomains: sinon.stub().returns({
-                    promise: () => Promise.resolve(mockResponse),
-                }),
+                send: sinon.stub().resolves(mockResponse),


Are we able to be specific with which method is being called for this sub as well? listDomains in this case?

vpbhargav · 2025-12-11T19:30:37Z

packages/core/src/test/sagemakerunifiedstudio/shared/client/datazoneCustomClientHelper.test.ts

-            assert.deepStrictEqual(mockDataZoneClient.getDomain.firstCall.args[0], {
-                identifier: mockDomainId,
-            })
+            assert.ok(mockDataZoneClient.send.calledOnce)


These assertion are not the same. We were validating input params earlier and now we are just validating that some send call is made. Are we able to maintain the old assertions?

Same for other places in test too.

Yeah you are right, the verifications are over simplified. let me add some more detailed validation

I think this is not addressed still right? I am not seeing any changes here in diff?

Not sure why the diff shows nothing, maybe due to force push? I added back the old assertions, except for we are validating send.calledOnce instead of getDomain.calledOnce now

vpbhargav · 2025-12-11T19:31:28Z

packages/core/src/test/sagemakerunifiedstudio/shared/client/datazoneCustomClientHelper.test.ts

                        domainId: mockDomainId,
                        id: 'gp_profile1',
-                        status: 'ACTIVATED',
+                        status: 'ASSIGNED',


Why did this need to change? Previous test was wrong?

Yeah it was wrong, it would be either UNASSIGNED or ASSIGNED

PotatoWKY · 2025-12-11T21:33:52Z

Thanks for making these changes! How are we testing and ensuring there is no regression?

I did sanity test for each of the 3 SDK upgrade PRs, I think we would also want to let the team test the prerelease vsix after the 3 PRs are merged.

liuzulin · 2026-01-06T09:59:47Z

packages/core/src/sagemakerunifiedstudio/shared/client/datazoneCustomClientHelper.ts

 */
 export class DataZoneCustomClientHelper {
-    private datazoneCustomClient: DataZoneCustomClient | undefined
+    private datazoneCustomClient: DataZone | undefined


wondering if we can import it as DataZoneCustomClient so we can keep the naming here, it aligns with the variable and cause less confusion

I'm not confidence if this is the best practice but there is my thought:
I intentionally changed this to DataZoneCustomClient -> DataZone to maintain the original type name because I think the extra step of renaming would cause more confusion. It looks cleaner to me, what do you think?

I don't think renaming would cause more confusion: renaming keeps the change in a single place: in the import statement. and helps to keep all the rest of places same as previous. I think it cause less confusion.
And I don't think it's correct to say it's "cleaner". indeed it seems more "cleaner" in this single file. But we also have a regular DataZoneClient which also have a DataZone type. If working across both files, this actually cause more confusion.
But anyway I approved the PR as I don't think this is a blocker issue and we can loop back on this.

Yeah that make sense!

liuzulin · 2026-01-06T10:00:30Z

packages/core/src/sagemakerunifiedstudio/shared/client/datazoneCustomClientHelper.ts

-                    this.logger.debug(
-                        `DataZoneCustomClientHelper: Using custom DataZone endpoint from settings: ${endpoint}`
-                    )
+                const clientConfig: any = {


avoid using any as type

thanks for catching that

liuzulin · 2026-01-06T10:01:07Z

packages/core/src/sagemakerunifiedstudio/shared/client/datazoneCustomClientHelper.ts

-                .promise()
+            const command = new ListDomainsCommand({
+                maxResults: options?.maxResults,
+                status: options?.status as any,


avoid using any as type, please also check other places that you changed

thanks for catching that. Checked these are the only 2 any type in my change for this PR

PotatoWKY requested a review from a team as a code owner December 11, 2025 01:22

PotatoWKY force-pushed the sdk-upgrade-datazone branch from 2890cdb to 0f08f21 Compare December 11, 2025 01:23

PotatoWKY changed the title ~~Upgrade sdk v2 to sdk v3 - DataZoneCustomClient~~ feat(smus): Upgrade sdk v2 to sdk v3 - DataZoneCustomClient Dec 11, 2025

PotatoWKY closed this Dec 11, 2025

PotatoWKY reopened this Dec 11, 2025

vpbhargav reviewed Dec 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

PotatoWKY force-pushed the sdk-upgrade-datazone branch 5 times, most recently from 03eaff9 to 66b4f43 Compare December 17, 2025 01:10

liuzulin reviewed Jan 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

PotatoWKY changed the title ~~feat(smus): Upgrade sdk v2 to sdk v3 - DataZoneCustomClient~~ deps(smus): Upgrade sdk v2 to sdk v3 - DataZoneCustomClient Jan 6, 2026

Upgrade sdk v2 to sdk v3 - DataZoneCustomClient

e8ffa59

PotatoWKY force-pushed the sdk-upgrade-datazone branch from 66b4f43 to e8ffa59 Compare January 6, 2026 23:43

Merge branch 'master' into sdk-upgrade-datazone

2942f78

vpbhargav approved these changes Jan 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

liuzulin approved these changes Jan 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

ashishrp-aws approved these changes Jan 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

ashishrp-aws added 2 commits January 12, 2026 11:54

Merge branch 'master' into sdk-upgrade-datazone

6b8113d

Merge branch 'master' into sdk-upgrade-datazone

b5face1

laileni-aws approved these changes Jan 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

laileni-aws enabled auto-merge (squash) January 15, 2026 00:07

Merge branch 'master' into sdk-upgrade-datazone

85134e2

auto-merge was automatically disabled January 15, 2026 00:29
Head branch was pushed to by a user without write access

laileni-aws enabled auto-merge (squash) January 15, 2026 00:37

laileni-aws merged commit a4eb4a4 into aws:master Jan 15, 2026
34 checks passed

deps(smus): Upgrade sdk v2 to sdk v3 - DataZoneCustomClient #8411

deps(smus): Upgrade sdk v2 to sdk v3 - DataZoneCustomClient #8411

Uh oh!

Conversation

PotatoWKY commented Dec 11, 2025

Summary

Solution

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Dec 11, 2025

Uh oh!

vpbhargav left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

PotatoWKY commented Dec 11, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants