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

Initial commit of boto_sqs state and module #12101

Merged
merged 7 commits into from Apr 19, 2014
Merged

Conversation

ryan-lane
Copy link
Contributor

This state and module manage SQS queues via boto, rather than the
aws commands. Since it's using boto, it supports IAM instance profile
credentials natively. The module and state also support the ability
to accept key/keyid credentials as parameters, through pillars or
through minion configuration.

In addition, the state and module supports managing queue attributes.
In the state this is added as an argument. In the module it's a separate
function. The module also has support for fetching the attributes for a
queue.

This state and module manage SQS queues via boto, rather than the
aws commands. Since it's using boto, it supports IAM instance profile
credentials natively. The module and state also support the ability
to accept key/keyid credentials as parameters, through pillars or
through minion configuration.

In addition, the state and module supports managing queue attributes.
In the state this is added as an argument. In the module it's a separate
function. The module also has support for fetching the attributes for a
queue.
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 18, 2014

Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results: http://jenkins.saltstack.com/job/salt-pr-build/3525/

@techhat
Copy link
Contributor

techhat commented Apr 18, 2014

This is awesome stuff, @ryan-lane. But can I offer a suggestion before we merge it? Take a look at the recent etcd additions (utils, modules, pillar, returners). The way I've set up the configuration allows for a single account to be used as you've done here, or for multiple accounts to be configured and used (which is the norm in an AWS environment) depending on which one is appropriate at the time.

What do you think?

@ryan-lane
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ah. Cool. That does indeed look nicer. It also means that I could share the same set of credentials across all aws services.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 18, 2014

Test Failed.

If the failures are unrelated to your code, don't stress, a core developer will know these apart.
In the future, if possible, please branch off a passing commit to avoid false positives.
Refer to this link for build results: http://jenkins.saltstack.com/job/salt-pr-build/3537/

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 18, 2014

Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results: http://jenkins.saltstack.com/job/salt-pr-build/3544/

@techhat
Copy link
Contributor

techhat commented Apr 18, 2014

That looks awesome, @ryan-lane. One more thought: how do you feel about calling your states present and absent instead of created and deleted?

@ryan-lane
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm fine with that. I'll push in a fix.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 18, 2014

Test Failed.

If the failures are unrelated to your code, don't stress, a core developer will know these apart.
In the future, if possible, please branch off a passing commit to avoid false positives.
Refer to this link for build results: http://jenkins.saltstack.com/job/salt-pr-build/3543/

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 18, 2014

Test Failed.

If the failures are unrelated to your code, don't stress, a core developer will know these apart.
In the future, if possible, please branch off a passing commit to avoid false positives.
Refer to this link for build results: http://jenkins.saltstack.com/job/salt-pr-build/3547/

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 18, 2014

Test Failed.

If the failures are unrelated to your code, don't stress, a core developer will know these apart.
In the future, if possible, please branch off a passing commit to avoid false positives.
Refer to this link for build results: http://jenkins.saltstack.com/job/salt-pr-build/3548/

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 18, 2014

Test Failed.

If the failures are unrelated to your code, don't stress, a core developer will know these apart.
In the future, if possible, please branch off a passing commit to avoid false positives.
Refer to this link for build results: http://jenkins.saltstack.com/job/salt-pr-build/3569/

techhat added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 19, 2014
Initial commit of boto_sqs state and module
@techhat techhat merged commit 94c4dbc into saltstack:develop Apr 19, 2014
@ryan-lane ryan-lane deleted the boto-sqs branch July 2, 2014 22:36
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

2 participants