Maintenance window support#133
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Lamirault <nicolas.lamirault@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Lamirault <nicolas.lamirault@gmail.com>
|
@jcorioland Any news for this feature ? |
|
@nlamirault I am contributor on this project, but I can't review/merge PR, sorry. |
|
ok @jcorioland . |
Hi @nlamirault , @jcorioland was a contributor and his's pr was accepted and merged by the project's owner. |
|
Could you review this PR @yupwei68 please ? |
|
Hello @nlamirault , thanks for your pr! I'd like to merge this pr, but now we have conflicts to resolve, and I've left some comments, would you please take a look and push again? Thanks! |
|
|
||
| maintenance_window { | ||
| dynamic "allowed" { | ||
| for_each = var.enable_maintenance_window == true ? var.maintenance_allowed : [] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would the following expression be better?
for_each = var.enable_maintenance_window ? var.maintenance_allowed : []| } | ||
|
|
||
| dynamic "not_allowed" { | ||
| for_each = var.enable_maintenance_window == true ? var.maintenance_not_allowed : [] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And this line too:
for_each = var.enable_maintenance_window ? var.maintenance_not_allowed : []| description = "Days and hours when maintenance is allowed" | ||
| type = list(object({ | ||
| day = string | ||
| hours = list(string) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since the hours is number (doc), would the type list(number) be better?
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Lamirault <nicolas.lamirault@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Lamirault <nicolas.lamirault@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Lamirault <nicolas.lamirault@gmail.com>
lonegunmanb
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi, I've tested the code with fixture in the test folder, and the following error occurred:
│ Error: Missing required argument
│
│ with module.aks.azurerm_kubernetes_cluster.main,
│ on ..\..\main.tf line 88, in resource "azurerm_kubernetes_cluster" "main":
│ 88: maintenance_window {
│
│ "maintenance_window.0.allowed": one of `maintenance_window.0.allowed,maintenance_window.0.not_allowed` must be specified
╵
╷
│ Error: Missing required argument
│
│ with module.aks.azurerm_kubernetes_cluster.main,
│ on ..\..\main.tf line 88, in resource "azurerm_kubernetes_cluster" "main":
│ 88: maintenance_window {
│
│ "maintenance_window.0.not_allowed": one of `maintenance_window.0.allowed,maintenance_window.0.not_allowed` must be specified
╵The enable_maintenance_window default value false will emit an empty maintenance_window block which is not valid. Would the following code be better?:
dynamic "maintenance_window" {
for_each = var.enable_maintenance_window ? ["maintenance_window"] : []
content {
dynamic "allowed" {
for_each = var.maintenance_allowed
content {
day = allowed.value.day
hours = allowed.value.hours
}
}
dynamic "not_allowed" {
for_each = var.maintenance_not_allowed
content {
start = not_allowed.value.start
end = not_allowed.value.end
}
}
}
}Signed-off-by: Nicolas Lamirault <nicolas.lamirault@gmail.com>
|
MAIN BRANCH PUSH DETECTED DUE TO #241, THIS PR WILL BE UPDATED. |
|
MAIN BRANCH PUSH DETECTED DUE TO #, THIS PR WILL BE UPDATED. |
1 similar comment
|
MAIN BRANCH PUSH DETECTED DUE TO #, THIS PR WILL BE UPDATED. |
|
MAIN BRANCH PUSH DETECTED DUE TO #, THIS PR NEED TO BE UPDATED TO TRIGGER CI. |
1 similar comment
|
MAIN BRANCH PUSH DETECTED DUE TO #, THIS PR NEED TO BE UPDATED TO TRIGGER CI. |
|
MAIN BRANCH PUSH DETECTED DUE TO #230, THIS PR NEED TO BE UPDATED TO TRIGGER CI. |
|
MAIN BRANCH PUSH DETECTED DUE TO #, THIS PR NEED TO BE UPDATED TO TRIGGER CI. |
1 similar comment
|
MAIN BRANCH PUSH DETECTED DUE TO #, THIS PR NEED TO BE UPDATED TO TRIGGER CI. |
|
MAIN BRANCH PUSH DETECTED DUE TO #253, THIS PR NEED TO BE UPDATED TO TRIGGER CI. |
|
MAIN BRANCH PUSH DETECTED DUE TO #, THIS PR NEED TO BE UPDATED TO TRIGGER CI. |
|
MAIN BRANCH PUSH DETECTED DUE TO #249, THIS PR NEED TO BE UPDATED TO TRIGGER CI. |
|
MAIN BRANCH PUSH DETECTED DUE TO #245, THIS PR NEED TO BE UPDATED TO TRIGGER CI. |
|
MAIN BRANCH PUSH DETECTED DUE TO #, THIS PR NEED TO BE UPDATED TO TRIGGER CI. |
|
@nlamirault this PR does not merge anymore in the current master. Please rebase this work asap or look into the proposed #256 |
|
That's ok @zioproto, I'm working on a new pr for this feature, I'll submit it when it's ready. Btw, in my new pr, I'd like to use |
|
MAIN BRANCH PUSH DETECTED DUE TO #, THIS PR NEED TO BE UPDATED TO TRIGGER CI. |
|
Let's keep the discussion in the thread on PR #256 |
|
MAIN BRANCH PUSH DETECTED DUE TO #259, THIS PR NEED TO BE UPDATED TO TRIGGER CI. |
|
MAIN BRANCH PUSH DETECTED DUE TO #262, THIS PR NEED TO BE UPDATED TO TRIGGER CI. |
|
MAIN BRANCH PUSH DETECTED DUE TO #260, THIS PR NEED TO BE UPDATED TO TRIGGER CI. |
|
MAIN BRANCH PUSH DETECTED DUE TO #251, THIS PR NEED TO BE UPDATED TO TRIGGER CI. |
|
MAIN BRANCH PUSH DETECTED DUE TO #, THIS PR NEED TO BE UPDATED TO TRIGGER CI. |
|
MAIN BRANCH PUSH DETECTED DUE TO #256, THIS PR NEED TO BE UPDATED TO TRIGGER CI. |
|
MAIN BRANCH PUSH DETECTED DUE TO #, THIS PR NEED TO BE UPDATED TO TRIGGER CI. |
|
Thanks @nlamirault for open this pr, I'm closing it in favor of #256 has brought us this feature. Thanks for your contribution to this module. |
This PR add support for https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/aks/planned-maintenance