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

Move to getParameterFromConfigV2 for input, excluding auth #5639

Closed

Conversation

robpickerill
Copy link
Contributor

@robpickerill robpickerill commented Apr 1, 2024

Moves the AWS CloudWatch scaler to use getParameterFromConfigV2 for input.

Context is from a conversation started here: #5635 (comment)

There is one TODO here, which is to move authorization over. I'll present that in a separate PR to avoid a large PR landing, and I can spend more time to read through the authorization code.

Checklist

@robpickerill robpickerill requested a review from a team as a code owner April 1, 2024 11:04
@robpickerill robpickerill changed the title move to getParameterFromConfigV2 for input, excluding auth [WIP] move to getParameterFromConfigV2 for input, excluding auth Apr 1, 2024
@robpickerill robpickerill changed the title [WIP] move to getParameterFromConfigV2 for input, excluding auth Move to getParameterFromConfigV2 for input, excluding auth Apr 1, 2024
Copy link
Member

@JorTurFer JorTurFer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM! Nice improvement!
PTAL @dttung2905

@JorTurFer
Copy link
Member

JorTurFer commented Apr 3, 2024

/run-e2e cloudwatch
Update: You can check the progress here

@dttung2905
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry I will try to take a look tomorrow morning😬

@JorTurFer
Copy link
Member

@robpickerill ,
Could you fix DCO check? You have the resolution steps clicking in the link
image

Signed-off-by: Rob Pickerill <[email protected]>
Copy link
Contributor

@dttung2905 dttung2905 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @robpickerill,

First of all, thank you so much for putting in effort into making this PR. Generally, its LGTM. Just one minor point that we have another PR #5319 that changes how getParameterFromConfigV2 works.

Is this PR blocking the other PR #5635 ? We can either:

(1) wait for #5319 to be merged first , then this PR and #5635 or

(2) we move forward with this current implementation of getParameterFromConfigV2 in the main branch. I will rebase yours into #5319

WDYT? @JorTurFer I'm in favour of (1) and I will try my best to merge my PR. Its almost done tbh :D

@robpickerill
Copy link
Contributor Author

robpickerill commented Apr 6, 2024

Hi @robpickerill,

First of all, thank you so much for putting in effort into making this PR. Generally, its LGTM. Just one minor point that we have another PR #5319 that changes how getParameterFromConfigV2 works.

Is this PR blocking the other PR #5635 ? We can either:

(1) wait for #5319 to be merged first , then this PR and #5635 or

(2) we move forward with this current implementation of getParameterFromConfigV2 in the main branch. I will rebase yours into #5319

WDYT? @JorTurFer I'm in favour of (1) and I will try my best to merge my PR. Its almost done tbh :D

Thanks @dttung2905, by all means take option 1 for me, feel free to tag me in the updates for when you finalize the implementation and I'll refactor this PR as needed.

Also let me know if I can do anything to help, thanks again!

@JorTurFer
Copy link
Member

Let's wait with this and then rebase it if you agree

Copy link

stale bot commented Jun 6, 2024

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in 7 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale All issues that are marked as stale due to inactivity label Jun 6, 2024
@zroubalik
Copy link
Member

@dttung2905 we can close this, right?

@dttung2905
Copy link
Contributor

@dttung2905 we can close this, right?

Yes we can

@stale stale bot removed the stale All issues that are marked as stale due to inactivity label Jun 6, 2024
@zroubalik
Copy link
Member

@dttung2905 we can close this, right?

Yes we can

Thanks for the work anyway!

@zroubalik zroubalik closed this Jun 7, 2024
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