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

Feature/dynamo state #49

Open
wants to merge 37 commits into
base: development
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Feature/dynamo state #49

wants to merge 37 commits into from

Conversation

jasdbrown
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@jasdbrown jasdbrown requested review from dejonghe and Pharrox May 7, 2020 14:59
deployer/configuration.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
deployer/configuration.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -40,6 +41,10 @@ def main():
parser.add_argument("-D", "--debug", help="Sets logging level to DEBUG & enables traceback", action="store_true", dest="debug", default=False)
parser.add_argument("-v", "--version", help='Print version number', action='store_true', dest='version')
parser.add_argument("-T", "--timeout", type=int, help='Stack create timeout')
parser.add_argument("-O", "--export-yaml", help="Export stack config to specified YAML file.",default=None)
parser.add_argument("-o", "--export-json", help="Export stack config to specified JSON file.",default=None)
parser.add_argument("-i", "--config-version", help="Execute ( list | get | set ) of stack config.")
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I feel like config-version isn't super clear that it is referring to a config action.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I had previously agreed with you until I saw it used in the read me.
We could leave it as is, move these to -x, or make a new CLI utility.

I think moving to -x probably makes the most sense.

deployer -s some-stack-name -x config-list

@jasdbrown do you have any input on that? Do these flags cause a completely different operation? If I use -i with -x update what happens?

if not args.all:
if not args.execute:
if args.config_version:
if args.config_version != "list" and args.config_version != "set" and args.config_version != "get":
Copy link
Contributor

@yeslayla yeslayla May 19, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I feel that if not args.config_version in ["list", "set", "get"]: might be more clear code. I'm guessing it's not as performant though.

Copy link
Contributor

@yeslayla yeslayla left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It looks like a great addition to me. I've used it to test out a handful of different stacks with lambdas, the vpc stack, nested stacks, and existing environments and had no issues.

Copy link

@dejonghe dejonghe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nothing currently blocking but would like some conversation on the items I raised.

Comment on lines 283 to +284
**Note**
Network Class has been removed, it's irrelivant now. It was in place because of a work around in cloudformation limitations. The abstract class may not be relivant, all of the methods are simmular enough but starting this way provides flexablility if the need arise to model the class in a different way.
Network Class has been removed, it's irrelevant now. It was in place because of a work around in cloudformation limitations. The abstract class may not be relivant, all of the methods are simmular enough but starting this way provides flexablility if the need arise to model the class in a different way.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Lets remove this. Anyone that even recalls that is probably long gone.


```
shared-deployer:
stack_name: shared-deployer
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe comment on this line like:

stack_name: shared-deployer # No longer required

@@ -40,6 +41,10 @@ def main():
parser.add_argument("-D", "--debug", help="Sets logging level to DEBUG & enables traceback", action="store_true", dest="debug", default=False)
parser.add_argument("-v", "--version", help='Print version number', action='store_true', dest='version')
parser.add_argument("-T", "--timeout", type=int, help='Stack create timeout')
parser.add_argument("-O", "--export-yaml", help="Export stack config to specified YAML file.",default=None)
parser.add_argument("-o", "--export-json", help="Export stack config to specified JSON file.",default=None)
parser.add_argument("-i", "--config-version", help="Execute ( list | get | set ) of stack config.")
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I had previously agreed with you until I saw it used in the read me.
We could leave it as is, move these to -x, or make a new CLI utility.

I think moving to -x probably makes the most sense.

deployer -s some-stack-name -x config-list

@jasdbrown do you have any input on that? Do these flags cause a completely different operation? If I use -i with -x update what happens?


class Config(object):
def __init__(self, file_name, master_stack):
def __init__(self, profile, stack_name, file_name=None, override_params=None):
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

profile can default to None

Comment on lines +372 to +373
#self.assertIn('update', [x['Value'] for x in tags if x['Key'] == 'Local'])
#self.assertIn('update', [x['Value'] for x in tags if x['Key'] == 'Override'])
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why are these commented?

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 this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants