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

Fix some job parameters for code engine #4923

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Nov 22, 2023
Merged

Conversation

bobfang
Copy link
Contributor

@bobfang bobfang commented Nov 14, 2023

Community Note

  • Please vote on this pull request by adding a 👍 reaction to the original pull request comment to help the community and maintainers prioritize this request
  • Please do not leave "+1" or other comments that do not add relevant new information or questions, they generate extra noise for pull request followers and do not help prioritize the request

ibm_code_engine_job's run_mode documentation has some inconsistency with the actual API.

The documentation states the following keys under run_mode:

  • max_execution_time
  • retry_limit

These are actually:

  • scale_max_execution_time
  • scale_retry_limit

I have renamed these references in my PR in the documentation and go code schema comments.

Output from acceptance testing:

$ make testacc TESTARGS='-run=TestAccIbmCodeEngineJobBasic'
=== RUN   TestAccIbmCodeEngineJobBasic
--- PASS: TestAccIbmCodeEngineJobBasic (30.72s)
PASS
ok  	github.com/IBM-Cloud/terraform-provider-ibm/ibm/service/codeengine	31.824s

$ make testacc TESTARGS='-run=TestAccIbmCodeEngineJobDataSourceBasic'
=== RUN   TestAccIbmCodeEngineJobDataSourceBasic
--- PASS: TestAccIbmCodeEngineJobDataSourceBasic (17.73s)
PASS
ok  	github.com/IBM-Cloud/terraform-provider-ibm/ibm/service/codeengine	18.845s
...

@hkantare hkantare merged commit cbdaf4c into IBM-Cloud:master Nov 22, 2023
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants