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

Expand Initialization Support #384

Merged
merged 18 commits into from
Jan 19, 2021
Merged

Expand Initialization Support #384

merged 18 commits into from
Jan 19, 2021

Conversation

ryanmerolle
Copy link
Contributor

Related Issue: #383

New Behavior

Add additional Startup Scripts and example Initialization YAMLs

Contrast to Current Behavior

New Feature expanding Startup Scripts Function

Discussion: Benefits and Drawbacks

See linked Issue / Feature Request

Changes to the Wiki

Current Wiki entry pretty much covers these new additions

Proposed Release Note Entry

Added new startup scripts for [insert items once we finalize]

Double Check

  • I have read the comments and followed the PR template.
  • I have explained my PR according to the information in the comments.
  • My PR targets the develop branch.

@ryanmerolle
Copy link
Contributor Author

Need to think about how to handle option_assoc for 1 to many associations added for VRFs and Route Targets (for import and export targets):

 - enforce_unique: true
   name: vrf1
   tenant: tenant1
   description: main VRF
  import_targets:
   - "65000:1001"
   - "65000:1002"
  export_targets:
   - "65000:2001"
   - "65000:2002"

The same problem exists for tagged_vlans being associated to interfaces.

We likely need to recognize the key as a list and loop through each item for querying the association.

@ryanmerolle ryanmerolle marked this pull request as ready for review December 31, 2020 00:12
@ryanmerolle
Copy link
Contributor Author

PR has been tested with all sample data.

Non-blocking nice to have items I leave up to @cimnine & @tobiasge to opine on are:

  • Reorder startup_scripts to their liking for execution
  • Add ability to setup 1 to many relationships for items like vrf import/export targets, and interface tagged vlans. (more detail above).
  • Adding items from Expand Initializers Support #383 that I mentioned, but did not add given ROI.

I will adjust based on feedback.

@ryanmerolle ryanmerolle self-assigned this Dec 31, 2020
@ryanmerolle ryanmerolle added discussion This issue requires further input from the community. enhancement The issue describes an enhancement that we would like to implement in the future. labels Dec 31, 2020
@ryanmerolle ryanmerolle linked an issue Dec 31, 2020 that may be closed by this pull request
@ryanmerolle ryanmerolle changed the title WIP Expand Initialization Support Expand Initialization Support Dec 31, 2020
Copy link
Collaborator

@cimnine cimnine left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I still have to test it, but from what I've seen this looks solid. Thank you!

initializers/aggregates.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
initializers/circuit_types.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
initializers/power_feeds.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
initializers/providers.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
initializers/services.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@cimnine
Copy link
Collaborator

cimnine commented Jan 15, 2021

There seems to be a problem with the power feed startup script or initializer yaml. To see it locally, run:

./build.sh master
./test.sh latest

See https://gist.github.com/cimnine/1201c3c93aa1ff1ded5d99f931a0b505

@ryanmerolle
Copy link
Contributor Author

I am assuming the 2 failed checks are unrelated to my PR

@cimnine
Copy link
Collaborator

cimnine commented Jan 18, 2021

I am assuming the 2 failed checks are unrelated to my PR

Yes, they're unrelated.

Copy link
Collaborator

@cimnine cimnine left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you :)

@cimnine cimnine removed the discussion This issue requires further input from the community. label Jan 19, 2021
@cimnine cimnine added this to the 0.28.0 milestone Jan 19, 2021
@cimnine cimnine merged commit 65023a7 into netbox-community:develop Jan 19, 2021
@ryanmerolle
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you :)

Thanks for your assistance!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement The issue describes an enhancement that we would like to implement in the future.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Expand Initializers Support
2 participants