Amplify Gen2 Data Construct does not expose tables or cfnTables

[dbanksdesign]

How did you install the Amplify CLI?

npm

If applicable, what version of Node.js are you using?

20

Amplify CLI Version

gen 2

What operating system are you using?

mac

Did you make any manual changes to the cloud resources managed by Amplify? Please describe the changes made.

No

Describe the bug

Based on https://docs.amplify.aws/gen2/build-a-backend/data/override-resources/ I should be able to access the tables the data construct creates, but those objects are empty

import { defineBackend } from '@aws-amplify/backend';
import { auth } from './auth/resource.js';
import { data } from './data/resource.js';

const backend = defineBackend({
  auth,
  data,
});

const dataResources = backend.resources.data.resources;

console.log(dataResources.tables); // {}
console.log(dataResources.cfnResources.cfnTables); // {}

Object.values(dataResources.cfnResources.cfnTables).forEach((table) => {
  console.log(table);
});

Expected behavior

I should have access to them like the docs says

Reproduction steps

Follow https://docs.amplify.aws/gen2/start/ to create a gen2 app, then write the code in https://docs.amplify.aws/gen2/build-a-backend/data/override-resources/ it will fail because dataResources.tables["Todo"] is undefined because the tables object is empty.

Project Identifier

No response

Log output

# Put your logs below this line

Additional information

No response

Before submitting, please confirm:

• I have done my best to include a minimal, self-contained set of instructions for consistently reproducing the issue.
• I have removed any sensitive information from my code snippets and submission.

[AnilMaktala]

Hey @dbanksdesign, Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We've managed to replicate the issue, so we're categorizing it as a bug for the team to investigate further.

[palpatim]

The issue here is that the Data construct's table creation strategy is to use the Amplify-provisioned iterative tables, rather than the CloudFormation-managed default. That means the resource shows up under dataResources.amplifyDynamoDbTables["Todo"] rather than dataResources.tables["Todo"]. That object exposes a different set of properties than the Table, so to accomplish the example, you'd do:

Object.values(dataResources.amplifyDynamoDbTables).forEach((table) => {
  table.pointInTimeRecoveryEnabled = false;
});

@AaronZyLee will be working to find the right way to update our docs to reflect this change.

[bebbo-zz]

Would I be able to get an ARN or StreamARN via amplifyDynamoDbTables? If not, I assume it is more than just a documentation problem, right?

[m-arrieta-r]

I did a test directly with CDK, and I didn't encounter the problem (https://gist.github.com/marnutux/f22b06dc8398babfa1f04c61daf36b0b#file-amplify-stack-example-ts-L30). I only have the issue when using the abstraction defineData, so I'm not sure if it should be reported as an issue at https://github.com/aws-amplify/amplify-backend.

[jrobertshawe]

Hi there. Via the same method, would I be able to add a Global Index. I did not see a way to do this via the Data resource model

[AnilMaktala]

Hey, We are working on it and it will be released as part of GA.

[AnilMaktala]

Hey @jrobertshawe, We have completed the work for backend and currently working on the client side library. We will let you know as soon as it is released.

[AnilMaktala]

This issue has been fixed in release:

@aws-amplify/backend": "^0.13.0-beta.6
@aws-amplify/backend-cli": "^0.12.0-beta.6

[pavinthan]

@AnilMaktala still same, here are my amplify backend versions

@aws-amplify/backend": "^0.13.0-beta.17
@aws-amplify/backend-cli": "^0.12.0-beta.19

[renebrandel]

@pavinthan - you should be able to access the resources under cfnResources.cfnAmplifyTables the reason is we're exposing them via a custom CDK resource in order to allow for multiple GSI updates.

[github-actions]

This issue is now closed. Comments on closed issues are hard for our team to see.
If you need more assistance, please open a new issue that references this one.

[dwil618]

Hi @renebrandel

I have been following a trail of issues and discord threads all pointing to this issue. As far as I can tell the tables and cfnTables still don't work. Unless I am missing something?

I would like to be able to add a DynamoEventSource for my lambda as described in the documentation

Also looking at other challenges like adding Tags to my tables. Do you have any advice here?

[renebrandel]

Hey. You should be able to use cfnAmplifyTables, which provide the same interface. The reasons is to address some of the workflow problems (like updating multiple GSIs in a single request) requires us to use a custom Amplify DDB table resource.

[renebrandel]

The L2 reference (.tables) should work as is though.

[dwil618]

Thanks for the speedy response and clarification! First part was my misunderstanding of the different interfaces.

I still have some problem with adding tags though. I see no error when using the below code, but it doesn't add any tags in the generated template/deployed resource.
Tags.of(backend.data.resources.tables.Task).add('test', '123');

[paulochagass]

Thanks for the speedy response and clarification! First part was my misunderstanding of the different interfaces.

I still have some problem with adding tags though. I see no error when using the below code, but it doesn't add any tags in the generated template/deployed resource. Tags.of(backend.data.resources.tables.Task).add('test', '123');

Same problem here.

[MyNameIsTakenOMG]

Same here. And in my case, I was trying to override some settings for my gsi, but in the end I had to use custom resource to help me with that.

Also I believe this could potentially an issue when we have multiple GSIs to create or configure, because if we configure our GSIs by following the amplify gen2 doc, then by default all those GSIs will be created with a ProjectionType of ALL, which is not practical in reality, because in most cases, we only want the necessary fields projected into our GSI tables, right?

Again, I understand the amplify devs have good reasons to design backend.data this way, but I still hope in the near future we could have more flexibility to configure the underlying dynamodb table, for example, in my case, maybe we could have an option to configure GSIs for our tables through backend.data.resources.cfnResources.amplifyDynamoDbTables