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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

feat: use security-group module instead of resource #73

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 15, 2021
Merged

feat: use security-group module instead of resource #73

merged 2 commits into from
Jun 15, 2021

Conversation

SweetOps
Copy link
Contributor

what

  • use security-group module instead of resource
  • update tests

why

  • more flexible than current implementation
  • bring configuration of security group/rules to one standard

references

  • CPCO-409

@SweetOps SweetOps requested review from a team as code owners May 25, 2021 16:41
@SweetOps SweetOps requested review from jamengual and nitrocode May 25, 2021 16:41
@SweetOps SweetOps marked this pull request as draft May 25, 2021 16:42
@SweetOps
Copy link
Contributor Author

/test all

1 similar comment
@SweetOps
Copy link
Contributor Author

/test all

@SweetOps
Copy link
Contributor Author

/test all

@SweetOps SweetOps marked this pull request as ready for review May 25, 2021 17:20
@nitrocode nitrocode merged commit 01463d2 into master Jun 15, 2021
@nitrocode nitrocode deleted the CPCO-409 branch June 15, 2021 19:00
Nuru added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 11, 2022
@Nuru
Revert "feat: use security-group module instead of resource (#73)"
1bcfd02 
This reverts commit 01463d2.
@Nuru Nuru mentioned this pull request Jul 11, 2022
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@nitrocode nitrocode nitrocode approved these changes

@jamengual jamengual Awaiting requested review from jamengual

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@SweetOps @nitrocode