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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
route53_health_check: Add feature to create multiple health checks without updating existing health check #1143
route53_health_check: Add feature to create multiple health checks without updating existing health check #1143
Changes from all commits
8c25929
cdbae7a
0f21134
022e7a9
851f890
88713f5
7d4be9d
5512b4f
c3a20a5
afeca55
25ef465
2c05680
ad51fc7
b47618e
79e2aa6
9620848
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
hm we should try avoid
while True:
.You can do something like that, where the function calls itself, based in the return value of
NextMarker
.but on the other hand do we have multiple
while True:
constructs already in c.aThere 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.
Rather than having two variables (
id_to_update_delete
andcheck_id
) I think we should update the code at line 561:564 to be:It has the same effect of acting on an ID provided by the user regardless of what ID was returned by
find_health_check()
, but with fewer conditionals later in the code (like the block currently at lines 574:579 under `if state_in == 'absent').We might want to add a check though to give a warning if the ID returned by
find_health_check()
is different frommodule.params.health_check_id
, since having data inexisting_check
for the wrong ID could affect changed status. @markuman What do you think?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.
If
module.params.health_check_id
is provided,find_health_check()
should/must not be invoked imo.But it is invoked, and overwritten later in L571, if
health_check_id
is provided. FMPOV the logic looks correct. There might be room to improve the condition tree.The existing integration test passes and also the appended that treated the
tag:Name
is unique key also.What currently is missing are some tests that uses the
health_check_id
to update and delete health checks. But I guess @mandar242 is still in progress with it.