ca: split the Provider interface into Primary/Secondary #11340
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
To make it more clear which methods are necessary for each scenario. This can also prevent problems which force all DCs to use the same Vault instance, which is currently a problem.
dnephin
added
theme/internal-cleanup
github-actions
bot
added
theme/connect
|
Thanks for the approval! This is based on #11338, so I won't be able to merge this one until that one is approved and merged. |
|
🍒 If backport labels were added before merging, cherry-picking will start automatically. To retroactively trigger a backport after merging, add backport labels and re-run https://circleci.com/gh/hashicorp/consul/490375. |
dnephin
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 27, 2022
ca: split the Provider interface into Primary/Secondary
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Branched from #11338
To make it more clear which methods are necessary for each "mode". This will help prevent issues like the one described in #11159. In the future we should be able to pass to use only the
PrimaryProviderwhen in primary mode, and onlySecondaryProviderwhen in secondary mode, so that we can't accidentally call the wrong method.