-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
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
feat(provider/cf): add provider skeleton with credentials management #2838
Conversation
The following commits need their title changed: e833e31: feat(provider/cf) add provider skeleton with credentials management Please format your commit title into the form:
This allows us to easily generate changelogs & determine semantic version numbers when cutting releases. You can read more about commit conventions here. |
d466b91
to
bbcd30f
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍
*/ | ||
|
||
package com.netflix.spinnaker.clouddriver.cloudfoundry | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We try to write all new code in Java/Kotlin -- take for example the new k8s provider in clouddriver
It's not exactly a hard requirement, but would be nice
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh boy. I wish we had known this before we wrote the whole provider.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There are some notes on the site here (https://www.spinnaker.io/community/contributing/back-end-code/), but we could definitely do a better job of publicizing this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Frankly, we could probably put a little bit in the parent build to disallow it from even happening for new providers. But I suppose new providers don't come along every day.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We were thinking of adding it as a spinbot check.
|
||
@Override | ||
Collection<Agent> getAgents() { | ||
agents |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We try to avoid eliding return
|
||
@Override | ||
String getAgentType() { | ||
"${accountName}/${this.class.simpleName}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same return
comment here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Awesome, sorry about the trouble
Nice! |
Based on a conversation with @duftler, we're splitting up the Cloud Foundry provider submission into individual PRs that can be reviewed in smaller chunks.
This initial PR contains the skeleton of the provider, up to and including credentials.
cc / @ethanfrogers