add susChkSrv HA/DR provider and make providers configurable #911
Conversation
|
|
yeoldegrove
force-pushed
the
feat/susChrSrv
branch
from
fa3caaf
to
8f0f37a
Compare
yeoldegrove
force-pushed
the
feat/susChrSrv
branch
from
8f0f37a
to
da6d2b4
Compare
|
@stefanotorresi @angelabriel Is it fine to enable both hooks here by default? |
yeoldegrove
force-pushed
the
feat/susChrSrv
branch
from
da6d2b4
to
1245534
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @yeoldegrove ,
All good codewise. I'm wondering if we should put them disabled by default, as we did in the formula.
No hard feelings.
aws/variables.tf
Outdated
| variable "hana_ha_dr_sustkover_enabled" { | ||
| description = "enable susTkOver hook" | ||
| type = bool | ||
| default = true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The default value should be false, right?
Or do we want to have it enabled by default.
Coming to the discussion in the formula, as it is not mandatory, we could set it disabled by default.
If you change this, remember to change the tfvars example file
| @@ -62,6 +62,9 @@ hana: | |||
| monitoring_enabled: {{ grains['monitoring_enabled']|default(False) }} | |||
| ha_enabled: {{ grains['ha_enabled'] }} | |||
| basepath_shared: {{ grains['hana_basepath_shared']|default(True) }} | |||
| ha_dr_sustkover_enabled: {{ grains['hana_ha_dr_sustkover_enabled']|default(True) }} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The same with the default value
I would prefer to have it consistent, which means disabled by default. For the not mandatory Hooks the customer should actively enable them to get them work. He should be aware of these Hooks and their behavior as they might interfere with other tools he is using for daily work. |
yeoldegrove
force-pushed
the
feat/susChrSrv
branch
2 times, most recently
from
53d8438
to
65bb751
Compare
make providers configurable
yeoldegrove
force-pushed
the
feat/susChrSrv
branch
from
65bb751
to
57d3fce
Compare
This will be a part of fixing #910
Needs SUSE/saphanabootstrap-formula#153 to be merged.