-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 89
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
Make request timeout configurable for all acme modules #448
Make request timeout configurable for all acme modules #448
Conversation
Oh right, let me add some tests.. |
@felixfontein Where would you suggest adding this to the tests (if needed at all)? |
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 your contribution! Could you please add a changelog fragment?
About the alias: I would not add timeout
as an alias to make it possible to use that name for something else in the future. For example, acme_certificate
could have a timeout
for the second stage where it eventually gives up waiting for the finalization to take place. Once such a functionality is there, I would expect timeout
to be in control of that one. (It will probably be best to use a different name for that one as well, and not use timeout
at all, to make it less confusing.)
Timeouts are hard to test with integration tests (without having an endpoint supporting that usage), so unit tests would be best. But since we right now have to unit tests for anything HTTP related, I think it's ok to not add tests here. |
@felixfontein removed the |
@JonasVerhofste thanks for implementing this! |
SUMMARY
Makes request timeouts configurable for all
acme_
-modules that use the shared acme argspec. Fixes #447.ISSUE TYPE
COMPONENT NAME
plugins/module_utils/acme/acme.py
; affected modules:acme_account.py
acme_account_info.py
acme_inspect.py
acme_certificate.py
acme_certificate_revoke.py
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Added
timeout
as an alias because it seemed logical, not sure if that's allowed (i.e. if that is usually only used for backwards compatible changes).