-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 458
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
enh 434: instance template should support multiple NICs #31
enh 434: instance template should support multiple NICs #31
Conversation
Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project (if not, look below for help). Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA). 📝 Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign. Once you've signed (or fixed any issues), please reply here (e.g. What to do if you already signed the CLAIndividual signers
Corporate signers
ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info. |
I signed it! |
CLAs look good, thanks! ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info. |
7eb9f04
to
5f1b4e9
Compare
A Googler has manually verified that the CLAs look good. (Googler, please make sure the reason for overriding the CLA status is clearly documented in these comments.) ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info. |
@@ -25,53 +25,61 @@ required: | |||
- zone | |||
- machineType | |||
- diskImage | |||
- network |
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.
Please update your implementation in a way that both 'network' (as the current implementation) as 'networks' (the new implementation) is supported to assure backwards compatibility.
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ info: | |||
|
|||
required: | |||
- diskImage | |||
- network |
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.
Please update your implementation in a way that both 'network' (as the current implementation) as 'networks' (the new implementation) is supported to assure backwards compatibility.
So there's good news and bad news. 👍 The good news is that everyone that needs to sign a CLA (the pull request submitter and all commit authors) have done so. Everything is all good there. 😕 The bad news is that it appears that one or more commits were authored or co-authored by someone other than the pull request submitter. We need to confirm that all authors are ok with their commits being contributed to this project. Please have them confirm that here in the pull request. Note to project maintainer: This is a terminal state, meaning the ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info. |
A Googler has manually verified that the CLAs look good. (Googler, please make sure the reason for overriding the CLA status is clearly documented in these comments.) ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info. |
d5282d7
to
7333011
Compare
CLAs look good, thanks! ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info. |
So there's good news and bad news. 👍 The good news is that everyone that needs to sign a CLA (the pull request submitter and all commit authors) have done so. Everything is all good there. 😕 The bad news is that it appears that one or more commits were authored or co-authored by someone other than the pull request submitter. We need to confirm that all authors are ok with their commits being contributed to this project. Please have them confirm that here in the pull request. Note to project maintainer: This is a terminal state, meaning the ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info. |
@@ -17,9 +17,20 @@ resources: | |||
machineType: f1-micro | |||
diskType: pd-ssd | |||
canIpForward: true | |||
network: test-network-${RAND} | |||
subnetwork: regions/us-central1/subnetworks/test-subnet-${RAND} | |||
networks: |
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.
why we don't use "network" in this case?
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.
Andriy, this test is dedicated to the networks property.
We have a separate test that should also check the network property.
A Googler has manually verified that the CLAs look good. (Googler, please make sure the reason for overriding the CLA status is clearly documented in these comments.) ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info. |
Please update the Managed Instance Group Schema to support the multi NIC Instance templates |
GoogleCloudPlatform#31 Fixes DM#434 for managed_instance_group GoogleCloudPlatform/deploymentmanager-samples#434
…ates, MIGs with backwards compatibility * Fixes instance & instance template errors introduces in this PR: #42 Issue: GoogleCloudPlatform/deploymentmanager-samples#434 * Additional fix * Reverted fix * Follow-up for #31 Fixes DM#434 for managed_instance_group GoogleCloudPlatform/deploymentmanager-samples#434
…ates, MIGs with backwards compatibility * Fixes instance & instance template errors introduces in this PR: GoogleCloudPlatform/cloud-foundation-toolkit#42 Issue: GoogleCloudPlatform/deploymentmanager-samples#434 * Additional fix * Reverted fix * Follow-up for GoogleCloudPlatform/cloud-foundation-toolkit#31 Fixes DM#434 for managed_instance_group GoogleCloudPlatform/deploymentmanager-samples#434
No description provided.