-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 398
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
cloudwatchlogs_log_group - Tagging support #1233
cloudwatchlogs_log_group - Tagging support #1233
Conversation
…g_group returns promised values
Docs Build 📝Thank you for contribution!✨ This PR has been merged and your docs changes will be incorporated when they are next published. |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
recheck |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
1a2d4b2
to
258f4d5
Compare
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
258f4d5
to
94f60b2
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.
Left some comments - also saw check_mode isnt implemented correctly. I can add an issue & PR for that if you're not already working on it
return dict(log_groups=[log_group], **log_group) | ||
|
||
|
||
def ensure_tags(client, found_log_group, desired_tags, purge_tags, module): |
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 could probably change the params here to (client, log_group_name, current_tags, desired_tags, purge_tags, module)
to avoid passing in the entire found_log_group
when we dont need it, but thats probably a preference thing. just a thought
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.
I'm not bothered either way.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Co-authored-by: Joseph Torcasso <87090265+jatorcasso@users.noreply.github.com>
41a8c2e
to
894f21d
Compare
Re check mode, my thought was deal with it later, wanted to try and get this tagging cleanup in place for 4.0.0 A general cleanup of check mode's probably going to be a sizable chunk of work. There's around 50 modules missing support. |
cloudwatchlogs_log_group - Tagging support SUMMARY Ensure cloudwatchlogs_log_group returns values defined in RETURN docs Add support for updating tags (including purge_tags) split cloudwatchlogs_log_group tests Add some basic integration tests for cloudwatchlogs_log_group_info ISSUE TYPE Bugfix Pull Request Feature Pull Request COMPONENT NAME cloudwatchlogs_log_group cloudwatchlogs_log_group_info ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Reviewed-by: Joseph Torcasso <None> Reviewed-by: Mark Chappell <None> This commit was initially merged in https://github.com/ansible-collections/community.aws See: ansible-collections@3f8d2fc
rds/tests: use aurora2 cluster by default Aurora1 (provisioned and serverless) which comes with MySQL 5.6 will be soon deprecated by AWS. See: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide/Aurora.MySQL56.EOL.html This commit also reverses change 8e7ac73. Closes: ansible-collections#1228 Reviewed-by: Alina Buzachis <None> Reviewed-by: Mark Chappell <None>
SUMMARY
ISSUE TYPE
COMPONENT NAME
cloudwatchlogs_log_group
cloudwatchlogs_log_group_info
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION