*/rm-assets: activate using path activation#2421
Conversation
|
Can one of the admins verify this patch? |
s-urbaniak
force-pushed
the
rm-assets
branch
from
da2e446 to
80b1c2f
Compare
s-urbaniak
force-pushed
the
rm-assets
branch
from
80b1c2f to
4844882
Compare
|
/cc @squat |
| @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ | |||
| [Unit] | |||
| Description=Clean up install assets from S3 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
couldn't we just run rm-assets.sh as a ExecStartPost in bootkube tectonic service to alleviate dependency hassle? then each platform implements the cleaning up as they wish (basically adding or not the cloud storage api call)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
some platforms don't have the notion of rm-assets.sh which semantically only deletes remote assets.
Local assets are being removed inside tectonic.sh but here I believe another service makes sense.
Platforms not supporting pull semantics (openstack, vmware, baremetal) don't need this service.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We also internally discussed the idea of running a one-shot k8s Job post-install, but this is better punted to a later refactoring (track 2), as this adds yet more manifest skew.
| name = "rm-assets.service" | ||
| enable = "${var.assets_location != "" ? true : false}" | ||
| enable = false | ||
| content = "${file("${path.module}/resources/services/rm-assets.service")}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is this meant to be always disabled?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes the idea is for it to be path-activated
|
retest this please |
|
@squat PTAL |
| ), var.tectonic_aws_extra_tags)}" | ||
|
|
||
| lifecycle { | ||
| ignore_changes = ["*"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we need to ignore lifecycle changes on the bucket too even though only the one file is changing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When I did experimentation locally and removed one file from the bucket, this affected also the bucket itself, hence I had to add this here.
squat
left a comment
squat
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
one small question, but LGTM
6 participants
No description provided.