-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 35
added new attribite load_balancer_security_group #1009
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
Open
bm-stackit
wants to merge
6
commits into
stackitcloud:main
Choose a base branch
from
bm-stackit:bm-terraform-provider-stackit
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
a435ddb
changed ipv4 prefix in resources loadbalancer.md to represent a worki…
bm-stackit fb20984
now changed docs at the correct place: terraform-provider-stackit/exa…
bm-stackit 76b08de
added missing loadbalancersecuritygroupid attribute
bm-stackit 3b62a40
added missing loadbalancersecuritygroupid attribute and fields
bm-stackit 81ec910
added changes to docs did fmt, generate-docs and linter. Added acc test
bm-stackit 2ca9b5f
adjusted docs to the newly corrected load_balancer_security_group_id …
bm-stackit File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
So you came here 2 weeks ago and introduced the
security_group
field to this resource (#986). Now you want to introduce a second one.I don't quite get it yet. What's the other security group id for now?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
Since I took this one over from a colleague that is no longer in our team we realized a bit too late, that he missed adding the other crucial security group attribute that is on the loadbalancer vm itself which is needed to do the actual routing. The Load_balancer_security_group_id is the security group of the LB VM and the other security_group_id is the one that we create but do not assign. Load_balancer_security_group_id is being put into the remote_security_group_id of the backend security group which in return allows communication of the LB and the Backend target.
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.
You were so speeding with your last PR, now we have the mess. Anyways, lets break it down:
We have the new
load_balancer_security_group_id
field now which relates to this field in the API docs right?https://docs.api.stackit.cloud/documentation/load-balancer/version/v2#tag/Load-Balancer/operation/APIService_GetLoadBalancer
And then there is the "old"
security_group_id
attribute which relates to this field in the API docs, right?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.
Your observations are correct. The Load_balancer_security_group_id(loadBalanerSecurityGroup) is important for loadbalancers across different Projects in 1 SNA. And the security_group_id (targetSecurityGroup) is useful for load balancers with targets in the same project but different networks.
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.
So I would say the
security_group_id
field be namedtarget_security_group_id
field instead. Which isn't possible now that easily because we have a deprecation time of 6 months...Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
That is not a problem, leave it as is.
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.
Maybe for you but I care about our users. IMO the
security_group_id
field must be deprecated and a new fieldtarget_security_group_id
should be added.