Remove forced ssl_key config in acceptance test harness #15396
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ryankfu
approved these changes
Aug 8, 2022
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No real comments, thanks for addressing this and identifying not only where it was initially changed and what PR reverted it back. It helps me realize I need to be more diligent with my merge conflicts to avoid these scenarios where an overwrite back can occur. Also really appreciate the links to the PRs too 👍
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What
In the acceptance test harness, we create a config for postgres to be used. We specify if the ssl key should be included or not through a parameter when setting up the config. We do not include this key in the config for our cloud acceptance test as we always assume ssl is true, so we do not allow it to be configurable.
This change was introduced through this PR: #14749,
but it seems like it was added back in this PR: #14781.
Probably some timing conflict since they were both merged on the same day.