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

Add additional Autoscaling and Cloudwatch resources #462

Closed
wants to merge 13 commits into from
Closed

Add additional Autoscaling and Cloudwatch resources #462

wants to merge 13 commits into from

Conversation

rgeddis
Copy link
Contributor

@rgeddis rgeddis commented Feb 29, 2016

New resources include:

  • New aws_cloudwatch_alarm resource
  • Add scaling_policies and notification_configurations to existing aws_autoscaling_policy resource
  • Documentation and integration testing for all the above

@rgeddis rgeddis changed the title Add additional AWS resources Add additional Autoscaling and Cloudwatch resources Feb 29, 2016
@joaogbcravo
Copy link
Contributor

👍

@chasebolt
Copy link

awesome! can't wait until this gets merged in 👍

statistic 'Average'
threshold 80
alarm_actions [
scaling_group.aws_object.scaling_policies['my-scaling-policy'].arn
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm thinking this needs a lazy wrapper around it because the aws_object won't exist during the first compile


aws_sdk_type AWS::CloudWatch::Alarm, id: :name

attribute :name, :kind_of => String, :name_attribute => true
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would be nice, since this is a new provider, to respect the new "standard" of RFC 054:
https://github.com/chef/chef-rfc/blob/master/rfc054-resource-attribute-improvements.md

notification_configurations [{
topic: driver.build_arn(service: 'sns', resource: 'test_topic'),
types: [
'autoscaling:EC2_INSTANCE_LAUNCH',
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thinking if the "types" should be validated somehow in compilation time.
If not in this PR, at least raise an feature issue, to make that later I guess. What do you think?

@joaogbcravo
Copy link
Contributor

I'm ok with this pull request. Just raised some nice to have questions, but imo we can merge it @tyler-ball

@tyler-ball
Copy link
Contributor

@joaogbcravo If AWS gives good error messages I don't like to duplicate validation on our side that they will perform. I'll check and see if the error messages are good for your suggestions above!

tyler-ball added a commit that referenced this pull request May 2, 2016
…ded support for updating the resource and expanded testing.
tyler-ball added a commit that referenced this pull request May 2, 2016
#462 from
cloudsmith-io/master
@tyler-ball
Copy link
Contributor

tyler-ball commented May 2, 2016

Merged in 7f57009 - not sure why it didn't close this PR, I didn't do a rebase. Thanks for the work on this one!

@tyler-ball tyler-ball closed this May 2, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants