feat(ec2): instance type properties

[nmussy]

Issue # (if applicable)

Closes #12022.

Reason for this change

Provide CDK users with both a list of valid class/type combinations, as well as the properties associated to those types.
Additionally, these properties could be used internally to give user warnings/errors if they are associated to limitations, such as Nitro support, cluster networking, etc.

Description of changes

• Instantiate each available InstanceType.INSTANCE_CLASS_INSTANCE_SIZE, both with and without its class alias
• Create a instance-properties.json file containing the complete output of the ec2:DescribeInstanceTypes API command
  • aws ec2 describe-instance-types | jq '.InstanceTypes | { InstanceTypes: map({key: .InstanceType, value: del(.InstanceType)}) | sort_by(.key) | from_entries } | .InstanceTypes' > packages/aws-cdk-lib/aws-ec2/data/instance-properties.json
• Map this data to a public instanceType.instanceProperties, allowing CDK users to access them

Description of how you validated changes

I'm going to add tests to make sure the data is exposed correctly, but given this data is only meant to be informative, it shouldn't have an impact on deployments

Checklist

• My code adheres to the CONTRIBUTING GUIDE and DESIGN GUIDELINES

---

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license

[nmussy]

Looking for feedback here 👋

This currently just a proof of concept to discuss the design. Once we settle on it, I'll add the missing properties (CPU, Memory, etc.), as well as generate the complete JSON data and static instance type values.

[aws-cdk-automation]

The pull request linter fails with the following errors:

❌ Features must contain a change to an integration test file and the resulting snapshot.

If you believe this pull request should receive an exemption, please comment and provide a justification. A comment requesting an exemption should contain the text Exemption Request. Additionally, if clarification is needed, add Clarification Request to a comment.

[aws-cdk-automation]

This PR has been in the CHANGES REQUESTED state for 3 weeks, and looks abandoned. To keep this PR from being closed, please continue work on it. If not, it will automatically be closed in a week.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 66.96%. Comparing base (caf2415) to head (5045d23).
Report is 258 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #29507   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   66.96%   66.96%           
=======================================
  Files         329      329           
  Lines       18667    18667           
  Branches     3260     3260           
=======================================
  Hits        12501    12501           
  Misses       5839     5839           
  Partials      327      327           

Flag	Coverage Δ
suite.unit	66.96% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components	Coverage Δ
packages/aws-cdk	80.71% <ø> (ø)
packages/aws-cdk-lib/core	82.09% <ø> (ø)

[aws-cdk-automation]

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

• CodeBuild project: AutoBuildv2Project1C6BFA3F-wQm2hXv2jqQv
• Commit ID: 5045d23
• Result: SUCCEEDED
• Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

[GavinZZ]

I don't quite understand the change and how the shell script was used. The script seems to be a manual invocation so whenever there's an update, does it require manually invoking this script?

Given the size of the changes in this PR, it makes me a bit uncomfortable to review or approve a PR of this size without any tests. Would you be able to introduce any integ tests? Note that I manually removed the Exemption Requested comment so that it doesn't trigger the workflow and add exemption-requested label back.

[GavinZZ]

Adding a pr-linter/no-exemption as I think we should add an integ test for this change.