Support packaging with an inherited CodeUri from Globals

[bmoller]

This supports #3376 describing what seems to be incorrect behavior.

The SAM specs state that CodeUri is a valid global for the AWS::Serverless::Function resource type. I would expect then that if I define CodeUri in my template's globals that the aws cloudformation package command would use that value and package my code using the global value.

This does not appear to be the current behavior. I added a check for globals just before iterating through a template's resources, and modified the AWS::Serverless::Function resource type to support missing CodeUri properties.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #3391 into develop will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 75%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #3391      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage     94.4%   94.39%   -0.02%     
===========================================
  Files          169      169              
  Lines        13223    13231       +8     
===========================================
+ Hits         12483    12489       +6     
- Misses         740      742       +2

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...customizations/cloudformation/artifact_exporter.py	96.55% <75%> (-0.89%)	⬇️

---

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 b260a7b...1822505. Read the comment docs.

[bmoller]

Okay, looks like I'm going to need a test or two to maintain the test coverage

[0xdevalias]

@bmoller any updates on this?

[hoegertn]

Any chance this will be supported soon?

[debora-ito]

Thanks for the PR! @sanathkr can you please review this?

[marcelomd]

Hi,
Any updates?
Thanks!

[wmonk]

Any chance this PR or the underlying bug could get looked at?

[justindho]

Apologies to everyone for the delayed response. The PR branch will need to be rebased onto the latest develop branch. We'll also want to add tests surrounding the proposed changes before the team takes a closer look at the PR.

As a side note, our team just put out a contribution guide detailing improvements to the contribution process. I'll be putting this PR in the "Implementation" stage of our project board. Once a rebase is completed and tests are added, we can go ahead and mark this as "Ready for Review", where a maintainer will do a closer review.

[tim-finnigan]

Checking in — as mentioned in the earlier comment, this PR would need to be rebased and have tests added before further review. I'm closing the PR as there hasn't been any further activity here in the last several months.