Closed AndreasBurger closed 5 months ago
cc: @rishabh-11 @unmarshall
/hold I think @AndreasBurger wanted to make an update right ? or is it ready to review
I've updated the PR to follow the approach we settled on in the provider-extension, so this should be reviewable
Can you also help me understand why this is needed? If I am understanding this correctly, this PR will reduce the visibility to a particular cloud and not beyond it. Won't this already be done by the Location
field (name of the region) in the providerSpec?
Can you please raise an issue for this PR? We follow this for all MCM projects. In the issue please detail out the intent of the change explaining why this change is required. Maybe you have got a requirement from a customer or you have already created an extension issue. If yes the please provide relevant customer context or issue link (if created elsewhere) in the issue in mcm-provider-azure.
I've addressed the comments, mostly by removing the CloudConfiguration (for now, we will most probably need it or something like it at some point in the future). For a little bit more detail behind that decision, see https://github.com/gardener/machine-controller-manager-provider-azure/pull/148#discussion_r1636375473.
I have also created an issue in the provider-azure and referenced it in the PR-description.
I have reverted the latest change and this PR now only uses CloudConfiguration
to determine which instance to connect to. The responsibility of providing the correct CloudConfiguration
for non-public clouds will then fall to the provider-extensions for the Gardener usecase.
What this PR does / why we need it: With this PR the cloud instance to connect to (e.g. Azure Gov Cloud, Azure Public Cloud) can be configured as part of the provider spec.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes: This PR is a requirement to fulfill https://github.com/gardener/gardener-extension-provider-azure/issues/890
Release note: