fix(efs): cannot run an integ test when transitionToArchivePolicy is specified and throughputMode is undefined

[mazyu36]

Issue # (if applicable)

N/A

Reason for this change

I encountered this problem when fixing a bug. This PR fixes an issue where we cannot rerun test/aws-efs/test/integ.efs-transition.js.

When attempting to rerun this test, the following error is encountered:

The ThroughputMode value for the file system does not support TransitionToArchive. Either change the ThroughputMode value to Elastic or remove the TransitionToArchive parameter.

When throughputMode is undefined, throughput mode is set to Bursting.
However, transitionToArchive is only supported in the Elastic throughput mode. (Ref)

The Archive storage class is available only for file systems that use the Elastic throughput mode and the General Purpose performance mode.

Description of changes

Set throughputMode to Elastic when transitionToArchivePolicy is specified in a unit test and an integ test.
I also considered adding validations. However, I decided against it as it might cause regression issues.

Describe any new or updated permissions being added

Nothing

Description of how you validated changes

Successfully reran the integration test.

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 82.37%. Comparing base (6c882e0) to head (29ba225).
Report is 16 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #33713      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   82.21%   82.37%   +0.16%     
==========================================
  Files         119      120       +1     
  Lines        6876     6933      +57     
  Branches     1162     1169       +7     
==========================================
+ Hits         5653     5711      +58     
+ Misses       1120     1119       -1     
  Partials      103      103              

Flag	Coverage Δ
suite.unit	82.37% <ø> (+0.16%)	⬆️

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

Components	Coverage Δ
packages/aws-cdk	∅ <ø> (∅)
packages/aws-cdk-lib/core	82.37% <ø> (+0.16%)	⬆️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[aws-cdk-automation]

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

• CodeBuild project: AutoBuildv2Project1C6BFA3F-wQm2hXv2jqQv
• Commit ID: 29ba225
• Result: SUCCEEDED
• Build Logs (available for 30 days)

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

[go-to-k]

I also considered adding validations. However, I decided against it as it might cause regression issues.

I thought we could add the validations too and it made sense. But what kind of regression do you think we will see?

[mazyu36]

@go-to-k
Thank you for the comment.

The old integration test seems to have worked previously.
I'm concerned that adding validations might affect existing deployments.

What do you think about this?

[go-to-k]

@mazyu36

I see. If it doesn't currently work even without validation, like this integ, I didn't think it would be a problem to add validation. However, it is not so necessary that it is forced to be added, so let's leave it as it is just to be safe.