-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
add skipping variable #644
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Aayush-Abhyarthi I think we both agree on the renaming as per https://github.com/terraform-ibm-modules/terraform-ibm-landing-zone/pull/644/files#r1414474051
Bare in mind, the new variable will need to be exposed in all of the patterns
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
see latest comments
variables.tf
Outdated
@@ -1497,10 +1497,16 @@ variable "vpc_placement_groups" { | |||
# s2s variables | |||
############################################################################## | |||
|
|||
variable "add_kms_block_storage_s2s" { | |||
variable "skip_kms_block_storage_s2s_auth_policy" { | |||
description = "Whether to create a service-to-service authorization between block storage and the key management service." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
since the variable has changed, the description needs to be updated to: "Whether to skip the creation of a service-to-service authorization policy between block storage and the key management service."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You will need to update the description for this variable everywhere it exists too
variables.tf
Outdated
} | ||
|
||
variable "skip_all_s2s_auth_policies" { | ||
description = "Set it to true to create the authorization policy." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"Whether to skip the creation of all of the service-to-service authorization policies. If setting to true, policies must be in place on the account before provisioning."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You will need to update the description for this variable everywhere you added it too
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ locals { | |||
module "kms_to_block_storage" { | |||
source = "../list_to_map" | |||
list = [ | |||
for instance in(var.add_kms_block_storage_s2s ? ["block-storage"] : []) : | |||
for instance in(var.skip_kms_block_storage_s2s_auth_policy ? ["block-storage"] : []) : |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The logic needs to be reversed now since skip_kms_block_storage_s2s_auth_policy
will have value of false
now
@Aayush-Abhyarthi A PR was merged yesterday that has a reference to the |
@Aayush-Abhyarthi Can you resolve conflicts? Is there anything remaining in this PR? If PR is ready for review, can you remove the |
/run pipeline |
/run pipeline |
@toddgiguere any further concerns with this PR? I'm thinking it might be good now? |
/run pipeline |
patterns/mixed/config.tf
Outdated
key_management = lookup(local.override[local.override_type], "key_management", local.config.key_management) | ||
atracker = lookup(local.override[local.override_type], "atracker", local.config.atracker) | ||
clusters = lookup(local.override[local.override_type], "clusters", local.config.clusters) | ||
wait_till = lookup(local.override[local.override_type], "wait_till", "IngressReady") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A change was made on this line recently and look like you do not have it in your branch, so hence TFLint is failing. Can you replace "IngressReady"
with var.wait_till
patterns/roks/module/config.tf
Outdated
key_management = lookup(local.override[local.override_type], "key_management", local.config.key_management) | ||
atracker = lookup(local.override[local.override_type], "atracker", local.config.atracker) | ||
clusters = lookup(local.override[local.override_type], "clusters", local.config.clusters) | ||
wait_till = lookup(local.override[local.override_type], "wait_till", "IngressReady") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
key_management = lookup(local.override[local.override_type], "key_management", local.config.key_management) | ||
atracker = lookup(local.override[local.override_type], "atracker", local.config.atracker) | ||
clusters = lookup(local.override[local.override_type], "clusters", local.config.clusters) | ||
wait_till = lookup(local.override[local.override_type], "wait_till", "IngressReady") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Aayush-Abhyarthi spotted another change needed
/run pipeline |
@Aayush-Abhyarthi You must have introduced a bug somewhere..
|
/run pipeline |
/run pipeline |
/run pipeline |
Will run the pipeline once #670 is merged (since this PR will need a rebase then anyway) |
@Aayush-Abhyarthi looks like there is now a conflict in this PR after rebase. Can you resolve it please. Hold off on running the pipeline though, as #677 is running now and will be merged first |
/run pipeline |
/run pipeline |
The |
@Aayush-Abhyarthi There was another PR ready so I just merged it and now this has conflicts again. Can you please resolve, and I'll priortise this PR once conflicts addressed. Thanks |
/run pipeline |
🎉 This PR is included in version 5.11.0 🎉 The release is available on:
Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Description
#573
Release required?
x.x.X
)x.X.x
)X.x.x
)Release notes content
Run the pipeline
If the CI pipeline doesn't run when you create the PR, the PR requires a user with GitHub collaborators access to run the pipeline.
Run the CI pipeline when the PR is ready for review and you expect tests to pass. Add a comment to the PR with the following text:
Checklist for reviewers
For mergers