-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 513
Open Service Mesh addon #132
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
Changes from 3 commits
aab437b
bce3b8d
68bb6c1
a187376
891769b
81d1fc8
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ resource "azurerm_kubernetes_cluster" "main" { | |
| log_analytics_workspace_id = var.enable_log_analytics_workspace ? azurerm_log_analytics_workspace.main[0].id : null | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| open_service_mesh { | ||
| enabled = var.enable_open_service_mesh | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @nlamirault you introduced a line with empty spaces at line 102. We are going to introduce very soon a CI that will lint the code, and this file will not pass the linting. Could you please remove the empty spaces ? To avoid this pain in the future you can set your editor to automatically trim empty spaces at the end of lines when you save the files. Thank you
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Sorry 👎 I made the fix using Github UI ... I fix that asap.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Hi @zioproto agreed but I think we can accept this pr for this time since we'll submit a single pr to fix all the naming issues and style issues. |
||
| dynamic "ingress_application_gateway" { | ||
| for_each = var.enable_ingress_application_gateway == null ? [] : ["ingress_application_gateway"] | ||
| content { | ||
|
|
||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -116,6 +116,12 @@ variable "enable_azure_policy" { | |
| default = false | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| variable "enable_open_service_mesh" { | ||
| description = "Enable Open Service Mesh Addon." | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Can we use the same description as provider's document? |
||
| type = bool | ||
| default = false | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Would the default value |
||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| variable "sku_tier" { | ||
| description = "The SKU Tier that should be used for this Kubernetes Cluster. Possible values are Free and Paid" | ||
| type = string | ||
|
|
||
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.
Looking at the documentation this is not a block:
https://registry.terraform.io/providers/hashicorp/azurerm/latest/docs/resources/kubernetes_cluster#open_service_mesh_enabled
It should be a oneliner:
open_service_mesh_enabled = var.enable_open_service_meshThere 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.
I actually tested this and it works with
provider registry.terraform.io/hashicorp/azurerm v2.99.0. The change I proposed will be needed once the module will use the version 3 of the provider.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.
@zioproto you're right. For now this module works with provider 2.x so this patch is correct, but we're close to merge a pr that upgrade provider to 3.x so I'm not sure whether we should continue work on 2.x. My thought is we upgrade to 3.x first then let's see what we can do for this pr.