-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
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 Private cluster and master ipv4 configuration #13
Add Private cluster and master ipv4 configuration #13
Conversation
3ed67e3
to
5e887bc
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.
Thanks for this, just a few notes.
variables.tf
Outdated
@@ -170,3 +170,13 @@ variable "monitoring_service" { | |||
description = "The monitoring service that the cluster should write metrics to. Automatically send metrics from pods in the cluster to the Google Cloud Monitoring API. VM metrics will be collected by Google Compute Engine regardless of this setting Available options include monitoring.googleapis.com, monitoring.googleapis.com/kubernetes (beta) and none" | |||
default = "monitoring.googleapis.com" | |||
} | |||
|
|||
variable "private_cluster" { | |||
description = "(Optional, Beta) If true, a private cluster will be created, meaning nodes do not get public IP addresses. It is mandatory to specify master_ipv4_cidr_block and ip_allocation_policy with this option." |
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 can leave off the note about ip_allocation_policy
since this that field isn't exposed to module users.
917937c
to
23579fe
Compare
23579fe
to
47840c0
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.
This LGTM, will merge once tests pass.
Before merging this, I would recommend refactoring to utilize the new |
@pratikmallya, thank you very much for your contribution! Unfortunately, we can't merge this until the integration tests are passing. When I checked out your branch and tried to run it on my local machine, I get numerous errors. Could you please get the output of |
@qvallance Thanks for the suggestion. @Jberlinsky Could you file a new PR which takes care of adding this functionality using the new |
@morgante Sure, I'd be happy to! |
@morgante Just to confirm, making this change would require moving from the |
@Jberlinsky I believe we're likely already using some beta fields, we're going to have to address that overall anyways so for now you can ignore the provider split. |
Fixes #8