Skip to content
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 instance_redistribution_type to region IGM #2212

Merged

Conversation

emilymye
Copy link
Contributor

Release Note for Downstream PRs (will be copied)

* compute: `google_compute_region_instance_group_manager.update_policy` now supports `instance_redistribution_type`

@modular-magician
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi! I'm the modular magician, I work on Magic Modules.
This PR seems not to have generated downstream PRs before, as of 9d033e7fe636b2f57816352539f60a652fe91bcb.

Pull request statuses

No diff detected in terraform-google-conversion.
No diff detected in Ansible.
No diff detected in Inspec.

New Pull Requests

I built this PR into one or more new PRs on other repositories, and when those are closed, this PR will also be merged and closed.
depends: hashicorp/terraform-provider-google-beta#1073
depends: hashicorp/terraform-provider-google#4301

Copy link
Member

@rileykarson rileykarson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM- just some minor thoughts/concerns on my part, neither are blockers.

@@ -16,6 +16,13 @@ import (
"google.golang.org/api/compute/v1"
)

const (
// Some fields are only supported by region IGM - these flags are used to
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm a little 👎 on using the same method as the resources diverge. While it's fine now while there's one field that's different, I'm afraid of carrying the pattern forward if more fields like this are added.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yeah, i could go either way on splitting right now honestly

const (
// Some fields are only supported by region IGM - these flags are used to
// manage non-shared fields in shared expanders/flatteners.
includeMultiZoneFields = true
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
includeMultiZoneFields = true
includeRegionalOnlyFields = true

Given that there's a precedent for a "multi-zonal" cluster that's distinct from a regional cluster in GKE, I'm a little hesitant to call this MultiZone instead of Regional in case multi-zonal evolves as a distinct concept in IGM. (It's pretty unlikely, admittedly)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can switch, i used multizonal because that's what the error message said and I had to do the "that means regional" switch in my head

@emilymye emilymye force-pushed the igm_redistribution_type branch from 9d033e7 to be8e476 Compare August 20, 2019 19:46
@modular-magician
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi! I'm the modular magician, I work on Magic Modules.
I see that this PR has already had some downstream PRs generated. Any open downstreams are already updated to your most recent commit, be8e476.

Pull request statuses

terraform-provider-google-beta already has an open PR.
No diff detected in terraform-google-conversion.
terraform-provider-google already has an open PR.
No diff detected in Ansible.
No diff detected in Inspec.

New Pull Requests

I didn't open any new pull requests because of this PR.

Tracked submodules are build/terraform-beta build/terraform-mapper build/terraform build/ansible build/inspec.
@modular-magician modular-magician merged commit dac78d8 into GoogleCloudPlatform:master Aug 20, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants