-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 242
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
Allow sourcing secrets and authentication tokens from a file #623
Conversation
993ee80
to
ec54406
Compare
/assign @kron4eg |
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 is one problematic place IMO
looks like AWS dpkg mirrors are funky today |
512adda
to
dc75afe
Compare
/hold |
dc75afe
to
65eb56d
Compare
/hold cancel |
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.
/approve
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 1fdf248c9d9b14be99df4aef40557427786be046
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: kron4eg The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR adds a new flag called
--credentials
(shorthand-c
) that allows users to specify a YAML file to source secrets and authentication tokens from.The file is supposed to be formatted as a string key/value pairs YAML, e.g.
Besides that, this PR introduces some code quality improvements, such as correctly utilizing constants in the
credentials
package.This PR only allows credentials to be sourced. In a follow-up, I'll extend this to add a possibility to source the cloud-config file from.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)
format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):Partially addresses #492
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: