Use theforeman upstream cloud_connector role #901
Conversation
| @@ -34,4 +34,4 @@ feature: ansible_configure_cloud_connector | |||
| vars: | |||
| satellite_cloud_connector_url: "<%= foreman_server_url %>" | |||
| roles: | |||
| - redhat.satellite_operations.cloud_connector | |||
| - theforeman.operations.cloud_connector | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| - theforeman.operations.cloud_connector | |
| - theforeman.operations.cloud_connector |
sbernhard
force-pushed
the
use_upstream_role
branch
from
1301c3b
to
cf27205
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was expecting this to show up on Ansible Galaxy: https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/collections/theforeman/index.html Unsure why because I found https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-operations-collection/blob/develop/galaxy.yml#L2
Diff LGTM from a branding perspective.
Downstream I guess we will have to branch this instead of pulling the gem in and changing this back to Satellite Operations. Does that sound correct @ShimShtein If so that could cause some overhead for the delivery team. |
| @@ -34,4 +34,4 @@ feature: ansible_configure_cloud_connector | |||
| vars: | |||
| satellite_cloud_connector_url: "<%= foreman_server_url %>" | |||
| roles: | |||
| - redhat.satellite_operations.cloud_connector | |||
| - theforeman.operations.cloud_connector | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This alone won't work either -- all of the variables in this template are expecting the redhat.satellite_operations variables. I think the path forward is to create two templates and not try to play a game of branding.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Understand. Thanks for your feedback.
I have not test system right now for this change but, what do you think about changing the vars in that way, that they don't have foreman/satellite in their name. The template can then set foreman_cloud_connector_* or satellite_cloud_connector_* accordingly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we can start with renaming the vars to something that is project-neutral, but Eric's idea of replacing the template looks like a way forward if we want to properly brand this.
@adamruzicka , do we have a how-to guide for branding for_feature calls?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What would you like to brand there?
sbernhard
force-pushed
the
use_upstream_role
branch
from
cf27205
to
dd6fcc0
Compare
No description provided.