Add omitempty to ALBTargetGroupRequest.Body

[WhyNotHugo]

If a lambda returns Body: nil, then the ALB returns a 502.

[bmoffatt]

Verified that ALB does as you say, 502 returned with json {"statusCode": 200, "body": null} but expect 200 returned when json is {"statusCode": 200}. The go struct isn't actually able to produce this, since the type is string rather than *string.

So... I think it's OK to represent in this model that null should never be written for this integration. As far as I can tell in my testing it's also harmless to drop the empty string body, ALB behaves the same way.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #408 (e11f266) into main (ce10e61) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head e11f266 differs from pull request most recent head 9418691. Consider uploading reports for the commit 9418691 to get more accurate results

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #408   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   71.63%   71.63%           
=======================================
  Files          19       19           
  Lines        1040     1040           
=======================================
  Hits          745      745           
  Misses        228      228           
  Partials       67       67           

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c481c61...9418691. Read the comment docs.

[bmoffatt]

Verified that ALB does as you say, 502 returned with json {"statusCode": 200, "body": null} but expect 200 returned when json is {"statusCode": 200}. The go struct isn't actually able to produce this, since the type is string rather than *string.

So... I think it's OK to represent in this model that null should never be written for this integration. As far as I can tell in my testing it's also harmless to drop the empty string body, ALB behaves the same way.

I was referencing this issue recently in a discussion, and realized that the change modified the request, not the response - so the issue described of a 5xx on the response path still exists.

[WhyNotHugo]

🤦 You're right.