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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
Add ENI support for nodes(for Fargate nodes) #223
Add ENI support for nodes(for Fargate nodes) #223
Changes from all commits
87c90e1
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.
Any reason we didn't create a custom "fargate" instance type? Not saying we should but just wondering if we explored that option. It might be nice from an API consumer's perspective to not have to check the provider ID to determine why an instance type is empty. Also it could be useful as fargate evolves to be able to have different instance types, if there is any information we want to expose about the instance. Of course, that can come later.
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.
good point but we don't want to populate this information as Fargate abstracts the instance types. But should be easy to add our own definition for instance-type as "fargate" if we need to. But in future it might affect if Fargate has some plan to expose the task type as "compute-optimized", "memory-optimized", etc. My suggestion is to keep it simple for now and add the type as "fargate" later if needed. Do you agree as well?
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.
Yeah, exposing the task type would be be a good future reason to fill this in. In that case, setting it to "fargate" shouldn't affect anything negatively, but we can keep it simple for now and wait until someone asks for something like that.