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

Merge pull request #3 from saltstack-formulas/master #86

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

dth202
Copy link

@dth202 dth202 commented Sep 15, 2021

Update upstream

PR progress checklist (to be filled in by reviewers)

  • Changes to documentation are appropriate (or tick if not required)
  • Changes to tests are appropriate (or tick if not required)
  • Reviews completed

What type of PR is this?

Primary type

  • [build] Changes related to the build system
  • [chore] Changes to the build process or auxiliary tools and libraries such as documentation generation
  • [ci] Changes to the continuous integration configuration
  • [feat] A new feature
  • [fix] A bug fix
  • [perf] A code change that improves performance
  • [refactor] A code change that neither fixes a bug nor adds a feature
  • [revert] A change used to revert a previous commit
  • [style] Changes that do not affect the meaning of the code (white-space, formatting, missing semi-colons, etc.)

Secondary type

  • [docs] Documentation changes
  • [test] Adding missing or correcting existing tests

Does this PR introduce a BREAKING CHANGE?

No.

Related issues and/or pull requests

Describe the changes you're proposing

Pillar / config required to test the proposed changes

Debug log showing how the proposed changes work

Documentation checklist

  • Updated the README (e.g. Available states).
  • Updated pillar.example.

Testing checklist

  • Included in Kitchen (i.e. under state_top).
  • Covered by new/existing tests (e.g. InSpec, Serverspec, etc.).
  • Updated the relevant test pillar.

Additional context

dth202 added 4 commits July 1, 2020 14:47
using letsencrypt.get('domainsets', {}).items() will prevent the state from failing if no domainsets are defined. 

This is particularly useful for environments where letsencrypt can be included in the top file for a group of servers where only a few of them have domainsets defined. The servers that don't have domainsets defined will not fail to run scheduled highstates.
update(domains): Update domainsets for-loop.
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.

1 participant