Skip to content

feat: Add variable to allow userdata to be passed as string to aws launch template #1963

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

Closed
wants to merge 7 commits into from
Closed

feat: Add variable to allow userdata to be passed as string to aws launch template #1963

wants to merge 7 commits into from

Conversation

rashidnhm
Copy link

@rashidnhm rashidnhm commented Apr 22, 2022

Fix for the issue mentioned in #1960. This PR enables the passing of userdata script as a string to the module.

If both variables userdata_string and userdata_template are passed, then userdata_string would take precedence.

@npalm
Copy link
Member

npalm commented Apr 25, 2022

Note: check conflicts with #1956

@npalm npalm changed the title Added new variable to allow userdata to be passed as string to aws launch template feat: Add variable to allow userdata to be passed as string to aws launch template Apr 25, 2022
@rashidnhm
Copy link
Author

Note: check conflicts with #1956

Sounds good, I'll rebase my changes on top of that PR

@ScottGuymer
Copy link
Contributor

As this is a quite advanced usecase I think this needs an example to show a potential user how to do this and call out some of the things they need to consider along the way.

@ScottGuymer ScottGuymer closed this May 9, 2022
@ScottGuymer ScottGuymer reopened this May 9, 2022
@rashidnhm rashidnhm requested a review from ScottGuymer May 16, 2022 17:48
@rashidnhm
Copy link
Author

I am also open to adding a userdata example if you'd like. Let me know.

@ScottGuymer
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, I think an example of how to use this is warranted. With some notes in the readme to guide the user when they might want to use it and what issues there could be.

Copy link
Member

@npalm npalm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@rashidnhm please can you rebase the PR. We have updated the module last week to AWS terraform provide 4.x

@ScottGuymer
Copy link
Contributor

I think we are just missing the example now.

@rashidnhm
Copy link
Author

I think we are just missing the example now.

Sounds good, currently working on getting that ready

@rashidnhm rashidnhm requested review from ScottGuymer and npalm June 4, 2022 03:49
@rashidnhm
Copy link
Author

Hello, @ScottGuymer @npalm wondering if you got a chance to comb through this PR yet?

@npalm
Copy link
Member

npalm commented Jun 27, 2022

Will put it on my list, sorry the PR got out of sight. Please can you have a look on the failing CI, some formatting is most likely the issue.

@rashidnhm
Copy link
Author

@npalm Sorry about the late reply, I've fixed the formatting issue. Please take a look and let me know.

@rashidnhm
Copy link
Author

@npalm Just checking in to see if you got a chance to comb through this?

@npalm
Copy link
Member

npalm commented Jul 13, 2022

not yet, hope to check all the open PR's this week

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had activity in the last 30 days. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had activity in the last 30 days. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Sep 13, 2022
@rashidnhm
Copy link
Author

@npalm I will try to update this PR soon and pull in all latest changes, will you have time to review anytime soon?

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the Stale label Sep 15, 2022
@rashidnhm
Copy link
Author

@npalm the reason I had this PR is to add functionality myself for having multiple runners. However, now that #2472 is in progress, this is no longer needed on my end.

@npalm
Copy link
Member

npalm commented Oct 12, 2022

I think in that case we should close, thanks fro reaching out

@rashidnhm rashidnhm closed this Oct 12, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants