feat(aws-fsx): construct for NetApp ONTAP file system

[badmintoncryer]

Issue # (if applicable)

Closes #41.

Reason for this change

There is no L2 construct for creating FSx for NetApp ONTAP file system.

Description of changes

• Add OntapFileSystem class
• Add MaintenanceTime class
  • However LusterMaintenanceTime class already exists in aws-cdk-lib.aws-fsx module , it seems not to be used in other file systems such as NetApp ONTAP. Therefore, I newly added MaintenanceTime class.

new ocf.aws_fsx.OntapFileSystem(stack, 'OntapMultiAzFileSystem', {
  vpc,
  vpcSubnets: vpc.privateSubnets,
  storageCapacityGiB: 5120,
  ontapConfiguration: {
    automaticBackupRetention: Duration.days(7),
    dailyAutomaticBackupStartTime: new aws_fsx.DailyAutomaticBackupStartTime({
      hour: 1,
      minute: 0,
    }),
    deploymentType: ocf.aws_fsx.OntapDeploymentType.MULTI_AZ_2,
    diskIops: 15360,
    endpointIpAddressRange: '192.168.39.0/24',
    fsxAdminPassword: 'fsxPassword1',
    haPairs: 1,
    preferredSubnet: vpc.privateSubnets[0],
    routeTables: [vpc.privateSubnets[0].routeTable, vpc.privateSubnets[1].routeTable],
    throughputCapacity: 384,
    weeklyMaintenanceStartTime: new ocf.aws_fsx.MaintenanceTime({
      day: aws_fsx.Weekday.SUNDAY,
      hour: 1,
      minute: 0,
    }),
  },
  removalPolicy: RemovalPolicy.DESTROY,
});

The CI job failed due to a conflict with the peer dependency of aws-cdk-lib.
I would like to set the peer dependency version to the newest one.

https://github.com/open-constructs/aws-cdk-library/actions/runs/10023311572/job/27704071917?pr=42

Description of how you validated changes

Added both unit and integ tests.

Checklist

• My code adheres to the CONTRIBUTING GUIDE

---

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

[go-to-k]

Thanks for your great contribution!

The amount of changes is too large to look at all at once, so I have commented on the few superficial things that need to be fixed. I would like to look at the core later when I have more time, but it may take some time to look at everything.

If you have links to detailed documentation that we reviewers should have seen beforehand, or your design or implementation intentions, it would be helpful if you could include them in the PR description or code comments. This would improve the quality and speed of my review and may make it easier for other reviewers to participate in the review.

[badmintoncryer]

@go-to-k Thank you for your review! I've addressed most of your comments (some are still pending and will be updated later). I will update my PR description to include links to the documentation or other relevant information. Please bear with me for a moment.

[badmintoncryer]

I'll add comments later.

[go-to-k]

Hi, @badmintoncryer

Thanks for the references! It's very helpful!

How are the revisions coming along? I will resume the review when you are ready. (I'm aware that you are still in the process of correcting the following and other points.)

#42 (comment)

[badmintoncryer]

@go-to-k I'm really sorry for forgetting this issue😓 I'll resolve it and get back to you later.

[go-to-k]

Could you resolve the conflicts?

[badmintoncryer]

@go-to-k
I was planning to reach out once everything had settled, but I appreciate your prompt response.

I've implemented the ThroughputCapacityPerHaPair class and added validation logic.

However, I’m not very confident about the overall approach, so I’d like your feedback. In particular, I’m not sure about the method name MB_PER_SEC_NUMBER, and I think it could be improved.

[go-to-k]

In particular, I’m not sure about the method name MB_PER_SEC_NUMBER, and I think it could be improved.

• MB_PER_SEC_128
• PER_SEC_128_MB
• PER_HA_PAIR_128_MB
• VALUE_128_MB_PER_SEC
• SIZE_128_MB_PER_SEC
• CAPACITY_128_MB_PER_SEC
• THROUGHPUT_128_MB_PER_SEC
• THROUGHPUT_CAPACITY_128_MB_PER_SEC
• etc...

Hmmm... That's difficult... I prefer the format of XX_128_MB_PER_SEC or XX_128_MB, but MB_PER_SEC_128 is also good...

[go-to-k]

Please also change the README, JSDOC, and tests later (if we need to change anything to match your implementation).

[go-to-k]

Hmmm... That's difficult... I prefer the format of XX_128_MB_PER_SEC or XX_128_MB, but MB_PER_SEC_128 is also good...

Let's go with MB_PER_SEC_NUMBER for now!

[go-to-k]

Great changes, very good! I have made some comments. I will approve this PR if they are modified.

[go-to-k]

Could confirmed all changes. Thanks for this PR. I approve and merge.

[badmintoncryer]

@go-to-k Thank you very much for your review!