-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
Add ConnectionType enum (STANDARD, TEST, MONITORING) #57
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
bpescato-amazon
wants to merge
2
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
add-connection-type-enum
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and old review comments may become outdated.
+31
−2
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Are we expecting any specific routing behavior from the monitoring connections (i.e. the reflector attachments) or just standard routing?
If we're expecting any special routing config here we probably want to document how it would work differently.
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.
I do think that the expectation of the MONITORING type is that any special routing that local provider must do to enable the agreed upon monitoring for the remote provider should be present.
I don't know if we want to distinctly document exactly what that should be per the API, as each provider may have differing requirements here.
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.
SGTM to avoid documenting exactly how it works, but it is worth documenting that this can have provider-specific behavior.
I also think that the quota here should be 2 monitoring connections allowed; one owned by one provider, a second owned by the other. E.g. if I ask AWS to create a monitoring connection, it may have different behavior than when you ask GCP to create one.
Final thing: should we consider documenting that a monitoring connection may not have a customer resource / key associated with it, or is that also something to leave up to each provider?