AWS provider: Properly check suitable domains #594
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/XS
|
Thanks for your pull request. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA). 📝 Please follow instructions at https://git.k8s.io/community/CLA.md#the-contributor-license-agreement to sign the CLA. It may take a couple minutes for the CLA signature to be fully registered; after that, please reply here with a new comment and we'll verify. Thanks.
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: no
elordahl
force-pushed
the
names
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e8eee44 to
2896444
Compare
|
Thank you for your PR 🙂 , could you first sign the CLA please? We'll have a look on your PR afterwards. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
cncf-cla: yes
|
CLA updated (force pushed w/ correct email too). |
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
Hmm, why are we not using |
|
Based on #356, it looks like logic is slightly different since multiple zones can be updated. |
| // bar.example.org is NOT suitable | ||
| {"foobar.example.org.", []*route53.HostedZone{zones["example-org-private"], zones["example-org"]}}, | ||
|
|
||
| // all matching private zones are suitable (i'm not sure why) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's explained in #356 (comment) and your test matches the one above, so I think it's fine how you did it. Can you move this test line to first block so it's easier to see?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Submitted in new PR since this was merged. Feel free to close if no longer needed. #608
|
@elordahl LGTM. Thanks for the fix! |
* Modify upgrade to work with multiple indexes * Use plugin display name in output * Code review changes * Return error when passing canonical name to upgrade/uninstall * Code review updates * Code review changes
Similar to #478 , this will correctly detect zones when names overlap with subdomains. I added a note to #446, but let me know if i should create a separate issue.
Note: I am not sure why all matching private zones are considered suitable, but did not modify that logic.