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

WIP: Adding CLI argument option to specify location of settings.yaml #79

Closed
wants to merge 0 commits into from

Conversation

bovem
Copy link

@bovem bovem commented Nov 8, 2022

Created for the resolution of issue: #45
Signed by: apal@redhat.com

@bovem bovem changed the title Adding CLI argument option to specify location of settings.yaml WIP: Adding CLI argument option to specify location of settings.yaml Nov 8, 2022
@bovem bovem marked this pull request as draft November 8, 2022 07:55
@jyejare
Copy link
Collaborator

jyejare commented Dec 1, 2022

Hello @bovem , Is it up for review ?

@bovem
Copy link
Author

bovem commented Dec 7, 2022

Hi @jyejare sorry for the late reply currently I am occupied with some high priority tasks.

I also wanted to ask that if I am correct the settings file path is currently passed using this method, but if I have passed it as a command line argument then do I have to explicitly define it for individual provider?
or is there any global way of passing settings file path to all the providers?

@jyejare
Copy link
Collaborator

jyejare commented Dec 12, 2022

@bovem For now, there is no way of passing the provider-specific settings/file. The method is currently focuses on settings as a whole and for all providers and in case if the settings are not found there then it goes to https://github.com/RedHatQE/cloudwash/tree/master/conf that has dedicated conf file for all computes.

BTW we have a new PR opened as #81 to support multiple accounts and now its time to decide whats the definative way we should go to support multiple accounts.

I would like to hear from you !!

@jyejare
Copy link
Collaborator

jyejare commented Dec 16, 2022

Ping @bovem :)

@bovem
Copy link
Author

bovem commented Dec 19, 2022

Hi, @jyejare
I had a discussion with @lyfofvipin and @ntkathole regarding the OOP refactoring of the project. But we will need some time to understand the codebase and project in more detail before we can approach that.
I think that is a good idea.

@jyejare
Copy link
Collaborator

jyejare commented Jan 23, 2023

@bovem Thanks, I really missed the last comment. Lets setup a meeting next week to talk about that refactor.

@jyejare
Copy link
Collaborator

jyejare commented Jan 30, 2023

@bovem Looks like you need to rebase as the commit history contains the old commits in this PR.

@bovem
Copy link
Author

bovem commented Jan 30, 2023

@bovem Looks like you need to rebase as the commit history contains the old commits in this PR.

I see, I did a merge with the master branch of RedHatQE/cloudwash repository. Should I do a rebase instead?

@jyejare
Copy link
Collaborator

jyejare commented Jan 30, 2023

Yes @bovem !

@bovem bovem force-pushed the adding-settings-path branch 2 times, most recently from 3fcc3c0 to 18dd7b9 Compare January 30, 2023 13:58
@jyejare
Copy link
Collaborator

jyejare commented Feb 14, 2023

Hello @bovem When are you resuming the work. We need not to block this for architectural change to be made as its more of CLI change than an internal.

Could you relook into it and we can get it merged !

@jyejare
Copy link
Collaborator

jyejare commented Apr 4, 2023

Ping @bovem again !!!

@bovem bovem closed this Apr 4, 2023
@bovem bovem force-pushed the adding-settings-path branch from 18dd7b9 to fb78112 Compare April 4, 2023 13:42
@bovem
Copy link
Author

bovem commented Apr 4, 2023

@jyejare I am sorry I think the PR got closed automatically because I forced pushed some changes to sync it with upstream. I'll raise a new PR with changes.

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.

2 participants