chore(ci): add support for x86-64 regions only

[rubenfonseca]

Issue number: #1950

Summary

Changes

Please provide a summary of what's being changed

This PR changes our Layer and Canary stack to support regions that only support x86_64 Lambdas. We couldn't find an easy and reliable way to
detect dinamically if a given region supports ARM64 Lambdas, so instead we maintain the map manually and indicate which regions don't support it.

This makes heavy use of CDK/CloudFormation Parameters and Conditions, so the same CloudFormation template can be used across all regions.

User experience

Please share what the user experience looks like before and after this change

After this change, we will generate Lambda Layers for regions that only support x86_64 Lambdas. We will need to update the documentation when the
first Layer version is generated, and validate that the script to update the layer version in the docs works with the single-architecture regions.

Regions that will be added by this PR

• ap-south-2
• ap-southeast-4
• eu-central-2
• eu-south-2
• me-central-1

Checklist

If your change doesn't seem to apply, please leave them unchecked.

• Meet tenets criteria
• I have performed a self-review of this change
• Changes have been tested
• Changes are documented
• PR title follows conventional commit semantics

Is this a breaking change?

RFC issue number:

Checklist:

• Migration process documented
• Implement warnings (if it can live side by side)

Acknowledgment

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

Disclaimer: We value your time and bandwidth. As such, any pull requests created on non-triaged issues might not be successful.

[rubenfonseca]

@leandrodamascena unfortunately there's no easy to way to test this. So please check the code to see if it makes sense, and after we merge we can try a couple of workflows to see if any change is needed.

[leandrodamascena]

Just out of curiosity. Any reason to remove the None here?

[rubenfonseca]

Sorry no, I'll re-add it to make it more explicit.

[leandrodamascena]

@leandrodamascena unfortunately there's no easy to way to test this. So please check the code to see if it makes sense, and after we merge we can try a couple of workflows to see if any change is needed.

The code makes perfect sense to me, but like you said: there's no way to test it and just looking at the code I have no idea if we need to change anything else.
So, I follow you: let's merge this PR and check for possible changes. I'll approve.

[leandrodamascena]

Approved.