Skip to content
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

Adding support for GCP Compute Target Https Proxys #38908

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 17, 2018

Conversation

rambleraptor
Copy link
Contributor

SUMMARY

Adding support for GCP Compute Target Https Proxys

ISSUE TYPE
  • New Module Pull Request
COMPONENT NAME

gcp_compute_target_https_proxy

ANSIBLE VERSION
2.6
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

This was autogenerated using Magic Modules

@ansibot
Copy link
Contributor

ansibot commented Apr 17, 2018

@ansibot ansibot added cloud community_review In order to be merged, this PR must follow the community review workflow. gce module This issue/PR relates to a module. needs_triage Needs a first human triage before being processed. new_module This PR includes a new module. new_plugin This PR includes a new plugin. support:community This issue/PR relates to code supported by the Ansible community. test This PR relates to tests. labels Apr 17, 2018
@ansibot
Copy link
Contributor

ansibot commented Apr 17, 2018

The test ansible-test sanity --test integration-aliases [explain] failed with 1 error:

test/integration/targets/gcp_compute_target_https_proxy/aliases:0:0: missing alias `posix/ci/cloud/group[1-5]/gcp` or `unsupported`

click here for bot help

@ansibot ansibot added ci_verified Changes made in this PR are causing tests to fail. needs_revision This PR fails CI tests or a maintainer has requested a review/revision of the PR. and removed community_review In order to be merged, this PR must follow the community review workflow. labels Apr 17, 2018
@rambleraptor rambleraptor force-pushed the gcp_compute_target_https_proxy branch from 42a4233 to 38226d3 Compare April 18, 2018 06:58
@ansibot ansibot removed the ci_verified Changes made in this PR are causing tests to fail. label Apr 18, 2018
@ansibot
Copy link
Contributor

ansibot commented Apr 18, 2018

@GwenaelPellenArkeup @bennojoy @dohoangkhiem @erjohnso @GoogleCloudPlatform @nitaco @robwagner33 @supertom @walbert947

As a maintainer of a module in the same namespace this new module has been submitted to, your vote counts for shipits. Please review this module and add shipit if you would like to see it merged.

click here for bot help

@ansibot ansibot added community_review In order to be merged, this PR must follow the community review workflow. and removed needs_revision This PR fails CI tests or a maintainer has requested a review/revision of the PR. labels Apr 18, 2018
@mkrizek mkrizek removed the needs_triage Needs a first human triage before being processed. label Apr 20, 2018
@rambleraptor rambleraptor force-pushed the gcp_compute_target_https_proxy branch from 38226d3 to 5253f23 Compare April 27, 2018 19:48
@rambleraptor rambleraptor force-pushed the gcp_compute_target_https_proxy branch from 5253f23 to fa42ecb Compare May 2, 2018 20:21
@ansibot ansibot added the stale_ci This PR has been tested by CI more than one week ago. Close and re-open this PR to get it retested. label May 11, 2018
Copy link
Contributor

@ryansb ryansb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Since this only has a one-argument difference (SSL cert) from this module #38622 , is it possible to merge them and distinguish whether to create an HTTP or HTTPS target proxy?

@ansibot ansibot added needs_revision This PR fails CI tests or a maintainer has requested a review/revision of the PR. and removed community_review In order to be merged, this PR must follow the community review workflow. labels May 11, 2018
@rambleraptor
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'd prefer not to merge them. It's going to be very difficult with the code generated approach.

Additionally, these are treated as completely independent objects from GCP's perspective. They use different REST endpoints, different gcloud CLI commands, etc. While the objects are very similar currently, that's an assumption we can't make for the future, since they're considered completely separate resources. My worry is that we create a merged TargetHttp(s) proxy object now and then have to retrain users to think of those resources separately when the APIs inevitably diverge down the line.

@ryansb
Copy link
Contributor

ryansb commented May 17, 2018

rebuild_merge

@ansibot ansibot added affects_2.6 This issue/PR affects Ansible v2.6 community_review In order to be merged, this PR must follow the community review workflow. and removed needs_revision This PR fails CI tests or a maintainer has requested a review/revision of the PR. stale_ci This PR has been tested by CI more than one week ago. Close and re-open this PR to get it retested. labels May 17, 2018
@ansibot ansibot merged commit afdbdd9 into ansible:devel May 17, 2018
achinthagunasekara pushed a commit to achinthagunasekara/ansible that referenced this pull request May 23, 2018
jacum pushed a commit to jacum/ansible that referenced this pull request Jun 26, 2018
@rambleraptor rambleraptor deleted the gcp_compute_target_https_proxy branch July 11, 2018 23:06
ilicmilan pushed a commit to ilicmilan/ansible that referenced this pull request Nov 7, 2018
@ansible ansible locked and limited conversation to collaborators May 17, 2019
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
affects_2.6 This issue/PR affects Ansible v2.6 cloud community_review In order to be merged, this PR must follow the community review workflow. gce module This issue/PR relates to a module. new_module This PR includes a new module. new_plugin This PR includes a new plugin. support:community This issue/PR relates to code supported by the Ansible community. test This PR relates to tests.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants