feat(event_source): add class APIGatewayAuthorizerResponseWebSocket

[leandrodamascena]

Issue number: #5800

Summary

Changes

The current APIGatewayAuthorizerResponse class is not suitable for generating valid policy statements for WebSocket APIs. This new class will ensure that developers can easily create correct authorization responses for WebSocket APIs.

The new APIGatewayAuthorizerResponseWebSocket class address the limitations of the current APIGatewayAuthorizerResponse class when dealing with WebSocket APIs. The existing allow_route(), deny_route(), deny_all_routes and allow_all_routes() methods do not create valid policy statements for WebSocket connections, necessitating a separate class to handle WebSocket-specific authorization responses.

User experience

from aws_lambda_powertools.utilities.data_classes import event_source
from aws_lambda_powertools.utilities.data_classes.api_gateway_authorizer_event import (
    APIGatewayAuthorizerRequestEvent,
    APIGatewayAuthorizerResponseWebSocket,
)


@event_source(data_class=APIGatewayAuthorizerRequestEvent)
def lambda_handler(event: APIGatewayAuthorizerRequestEvent, context):
    # Simple auth check (replace with your actual auth logic)
    is_authorized = event.headers.get("HeaderAuth1") == "headerValue1"

    if not is_authorized:
        return {"principalId": "", "policyDocument": {"Version": "2012-10-17", "Statement": []}}

    arn = event.parsed_arn

    policy = APIGatewayAuthorizerResponseWebSocket(
        principal_id="user",
        context={"user": "example"},
        region=arn.region,
        aws_account_id=arn.aws_account_id,
        api_id=arn.api_id,
        stage=arn.stage,
    )

    policy.allow_all_routes()

    return policy.asdict()

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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.25%. Comparing base (4b6fb57) to head (bf17b50).
Report is 2 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #6058      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    96.24%   96.25%   +0.01%     
===========================================
  Files          234      234              
  Lines        11024    11057      +33     
  Branches       800      803       +3     
===========================================
+ Hits         10610    10643      +33     
  Misses         327      327              
  Partials        87       87              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[anafalcao]

Amazing PR! Thank you Leo, approved

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud