feat(rds): add name property to option group

[tnb-git]

Issue

Closes #35720 .

Reason for this change

This change fixes an issue in the RDS OptionGroup L2 construct where some parameter settings were not correctly reflected in CloudFormation.

Description of changes

• Added support for additional parameters in the OptionGroup L2 construct.
• Updated the integration test (integ.option-group.ts)
• No impact on existing default settings.

Describe any new or updated permissions being added

No extra permissions needed

Description of how you validated changes

Added a unit test

Checklist

• My code adheres to the CONTRIBUTING GUIDE and DESIGN GUIDELINES

---

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license

[aws-cdk-automation]

(This review is outdated)

[github-actions]

⚠️ Experimental Feature: This security report is currently in experimental phase. Results may include false positives and the rules are being actively refined.
Please try merge from main to avoid findings unrelated to the PR.

---

	Tests	Passed ✅	Skipped	Failed
Security Guardian Results	48 ran	48 passed

Test	Result
No test annotations available

• View Security Guardian Results

[github-actions]

⚠️ Experimental Feature: This security report is currently in experimental phase. Results may include false positives and the rules are being actively refined.
Please try merge from main to avoid findings unrelated to the PR.

---

	Tests	Passed ✅	Skipped	Failed
Security Guardian Results with resolved templates	48 ran	48 passed

Test	Result
No test annotations available

• View Security Guardian Results with resolved templates

✅ Updated pull request passes all PRLinter validations. Dismissing previous PRLinter review.

[gasolima]

Our design guidelines is to follow the service name documentation which is optionGroupName also it will be aligned with other resources(s3.Bucket or lambda.Function)

Can we change it to optionGroupName?

[tnb-git]

I Change it to optoinGroupName

Pull request has been modified.

[tnb-git]

@gasolima Thank you for the review. I’ve addressed the review comments. While making the fixes, the PR’s CI failed, so I merged the changes from main. As a result, it now shows “This branch has conflicts that must be resolved.” Should I revert the merge of the changes from main?

[gasolima]

@gasolima Thank you for the review. I’ve addressed the review comments. While making the fixes, the PR’s CI failed, so I merged the changes from main. As a result, it now shows “This branch has conflicts that must be resolved.” Should I revert the merge of the changes from main?

I fixed the merge conflicts part, now the build succeeded which is a good sign once the integration test succeed will merge the PR. Thanks for your contribution!

[mergify]

Thank you for contributing! Your pull request will be updated from main and then merged automatically (do not update manually, and be sure to allow changes to be pushed to your fork).

[mergify]

Merge Queue Status

✅ The pull request has been merged at 32fcbbb

This pull request spent 6 hours 44 minutes 12 seconds in the queue, including 6 hours 44 minutes 2 seconds running CI.
The checks were run in-place.

Required conditions to merge

• #approved-reviews-by >= 1 [🛡 GitHub branch protection]
  • feat(rds): add name property to option group #36319
• #changes-requested-reviews-by = 0 [🛡 GitHub branch protection]
  • feat(rds): add name property to option group #36319
• any of [🛡 GitHub branch protection]:
  • check-success = validate-pr
  • check-neutral = validate-pr
  • check-skipped = validate-pr
• any of [🛡 GitHub branch protection]:
  • check-success = build
  • check-neutral = build
  • check-skipped = build

[github-actions]

Comments on closed issues and PRs are hard for our team to see.
If you need help, please open a new issue that references this one.