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

auroradns: Add support for Health Checks #672

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

wido
Copy link
Contributor

@wido wido commented Jan 5, 2016

AuroraDNS supports Health Checks and based on the state of these
checks records will be served or not.

This way a Round-Robin DNS balancing can be achieved pointing to
only healthy servers/services.

@@ -140,6 +272,14 @@ def list_zones(self):
return zones

def list_records(self, zone):
"""
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There is no need to add docstring for methods which are the same as the ones already defined in the base class - those docstrings are automatically inherited from the parent class methods.

@@ -1,6 +1,5 @@
from libcloud.dns.types import Provider
from libcloud.dns.types import Provider, RecordType
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We tend to use one import per line - this makes searching and grepping a bit easier.

@wido wido force-pushed the auroradns-healthchecks branch 2 times, most recently from ecff808 to 97575b6 Compare January 5, 2016 14:27
@wido
Copy link
Contributor Author

wido commented Jan 5, 2016

@Kami Thank you for the quick reviews! I just force pushed a new version

@wido wido force-pushed the auroradns-healthchecks branch 2 times, most recently from a6132bf to c1f4062 Compare January 5, 2016 16:37
:param enabled: (optional) If this healthcheck is enabled to run
:type enabled: ``bool``

:param extra: (optional) Extra attributes (driver specific).
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

extra doesn't seem to be used. Is it needed? Are there other 'health check' drivers that use it and this is just allowing it to be passed in for consistency?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That is correct. It is indeed just there for consistency with the other APIs

A more generic approach for health checks might be nice, I think that Route 53 and Google DNS also support this.

@wido wido force-pushed the auroradns-healthchecks branch 3 times, most recently from c874f39 to 31f8284 Compare January 14, 2016 16:56
AuroraDNS supports Health Checks and based on the state of these
checks records will be served or not.

This way a Round-Robin DNS balancing can be achieved pointing to
only healthy servers/services.
@wido
Copy link
Contributor Author

wido commented Jan 14, 2016

I updated the commit with tests for AuroraDNS. They were merged in #679

Tests are passing on my system, waiting for Travis CI :)

@tonybaloney
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @wido


def __res_to_zone(self, zone):
return Zone(id=zone['id'], domain=zone['name'], type=DEFAULT_ZONE_TYPE,
return Zone(id=zone['id'], domain=zone['name'],
type=DEFAULT_ZONE_TYPE,
ttl=DEFAULT_ZONE_TTL, driver=self,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

here too

@wido
Copy link
Contributor Author

wido commented Jan 15, 2016

@tonybaloney Thanks for the feedback! I wasn't aware of that. Fixed that in a new commit.

@tonybaloney
Copy link
Contributor

thanks. merging

@asfgit asfgit closed this in 56649ca Jan 15, 2016
asfgit pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 15, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants