Restrict node access to cluster metadata service #203
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
marko7460
requested review from
aaron-lane,
adrienthebo,
Jberlinsky and
morgante
as code owners
aaron-lane
suggested changes
Jul 3, 2019
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The current implementation will force a recreation of the cluster and the node pool if the user tries to migrate from a GA module to a beta module because adding workload_metadata_config forces recreation. Similar to #205, can we implement this in a way where workload_metadata_config is passed an empty array if node_metadata is set to "UNSPECIFIED", or will that have a different effect?
|
@aaron-lane you are correct that |
aaron-lane
approved these changes
Jul 4, 2019
|
Thanks @marko7460 and @dmyerscough! |
aaron-lane
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 4, 2019
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR is implementation of #166 based on @aaron-lane's last comment.
See #166 for more details.