(MINOR) improve R53 AssertHostedZoneExists func

[mdb]

SUMMARY

• fixes issue Route53Client does not correctly implement ListHostedZonesByName #19
• ~While this does change the method name from AssertRoute53HostedZoneExists to AssertHostedZoneExists -- and therefore, in theory, introduces a breaking change -- I don't believe the original AssertRoute53HostedZoneExists was functioning properly due to issue Route53Client does not correctly implement ListHostedZonesByName #19 ~

DEVELOPER IMPACT

While this does change the method name from AssertRoute53HostedZoneExists to AssertHostedZoneExists -- and therefore, in theory, introduces a breaking change -- I don't believe the original AssertRoute53HostedZoneExists was functioning properly due to issue #19

Contribution Checklist

• All changes have been reflected in comparable unit test changes or additions.
• Any interactions with third party clients are done via interface types rather than direct interactions.
• All new functions follow the required naming standard.
• All new functions follow the required signature standards.

Discussion question

This PR changes the func name from AssertRoute53HostedZoneExists to AssertHostedZoneExists, as per PR 15 discussion:

I think this would be better named as AssertRecordExistsInHostedZone, since route53 is already part of the package name.

However, I believe ☝️ is not quite correct. route53 is not actually part of the package name, if I understand correctly. The package name is aws. So, should the func names include *Route53* or not? As a frame of reference, the EC2-related funcs do appear to include *EC2* in their names: https://github.com/HBOCodeLabs/infratest/blob/main/pkg/aws/ec2.go#L57

Update: I've changed both Route53 assertion functions to include *Route53* in their name, as is consistent with the other infratest functions.

[yardbirdsax]

Approved. Agreed that this doesn't need to be a major version bump, especially since we are still in 0.x versions so there shouldn't be a hard expectation of interface stability yet.

[yardbirdsax]

However, I believe ☝️ is not quite correct. route53 is not actually part of the package name, if I understand correctly. The package name is aws. So, should the func names include Route53 or not?

Hmm... you appear to be correct, perhaps I was not fully ☕ 'd up that day. Given the pattern established with the EC2 methods, I agree that the methods here should likely include Route53 in their name.

[mdb]

@yardbirdsax Thanks for the feedback. I've pushed another commit such that both Route53 assertion functions include Route53 in their names.

[yardbirdsax]

LGTM. Please just call out the changes in a ## CHANGES section in the extended description of your merge commit, and include (MINOR) in your main title. You can check the last commit for an example. Thanks for the work!