Update dynatrace detection criteria #317
Conversation
|
Hey aloismayr! Thanks for submitting this pull request! I'm here to inform the recipients of the pull request that you and the commit authors have already signed the CLA. |
|
@aloismayr This doesn't lead to some overlap between the two frameworks? They're still mutually exclusive of one another? Also, can you please update the documentation with the new detection criteria so that there's a human-readable version of the same changes? |
| @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ def release | |||
|
|
|||
| # (see JavaBuildpack::Component::VersionedDependencyComponent#supports?) | |||
| def supports? | |||
| @application.services.one_service? FILTER, 'server' | |||
| (@application.services.one_service? FILTER, 'server') && !(@application.services.one_service? FILTER, 'tenant') | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This filter should mirror the positive filter from the Ruxit framework; it needs to require both tenant and tenanttoken.
|
@nebhale You're right. We needed to change the detection criterion for both products (Appmon & Ruxit) because Dynatrace Ruxit recently became Dynatrace. See here: https://blog.ruxit.com/dynatrace-ruxit-becomes-dynatrace/ |
… buildpack. Made sure that they do not overlap. See updated documentation
|
@nebhale Any news on this? FYI - Updated the documentation regarding the detection criteria for both products. |
|
Sorry, thought I'd merged that in. Guess I never pushed. Give me 10 minutes. |
Update criteria for detection of dynatrace/ruxit extensions.