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

Include more fluxd flags in the requested launch configuration #277

Closed
squaremo opened this issue May 28, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #279
Closed

Include more fluxd flags in the requested launch configuration #277

squaremo opened this issue May 28, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #279
Assignees

Comments

@squaremo
Copy link
Contributor

At present, most customisations of fluxd (a.k.a., weave-flux-agent) will be reset when the launcher agent re-applies configuration.

In the absence of a redesign of how that mechanism works, we can at least add some of the flags from fluxd to those that can be configured by supplying them in the URL.

These would be useful to scrape and use in the URL, if present in the deployment manifest:

  • --registry-ecr-region ([]string)
  • --registry-require ([]string, but in practice either ecr or not supplied)
  • --git-timeout (duration e.g., 30s)
  • --git-poll-interval (duration e.g., 2m)
  • --sync-garbage-collection (bool)
  • --memcached-service (string; especially useful is the ability to set it to empty, implying the memcached service should not have clusterIP: None)
  • --registry-exclude-image ([]string)
  • --k8s-allow-namespace ([]string)
  • --git-set-author (bool)
  • --git-ci-skip (bool)
@bboreham
Copy link
Contributor

This is a subset of #78, I think. #145 was a possible way to implement.

@squaremo
Copy link
Contributor Author

This is a subset of #78, I think.

Perhaps, but that advocates for a general mechanism for round-tripping flag values. This issue is asking for an application of the existing, specific mechanism to additional flags. (If a solution to #78 is imminent, then it would be better to expand that. But I do not believe it is imminent.)

#145 was a possible way to implement.

That's a possible way to implement #78, but is not what's requested here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants