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

Add Amazon block storage automation models #13458

Merged

Conversation

gberginc
Copy link
Contributor

With the introduction of Amazon block storage manager we are required to
define automation service models for newly created provider models.
Currently only the storage manager, cloud volume and cloud volume
snapshot models are used.

Depends on ManageIQ/manageiq-providers-amazon#101.

@miq-bot add_label providers/amazon, automate/model

@gberginc
Copy link
Contributor Author

@roliveri @gmcculloug dependent PR(ManageIQ/manageiq-providers-amazon#101) has just been merged by @Ladas.

@gberginc gberginc closed this Jan 17, 2017
@gberginc gberginc reopened this Jan 17, 2017
@gmcculloug
Copy link
Member

Looks good.

With the introduction of Amazon block storage manager we are required to
define automation service models for newly created provider models.
Currently only the storage manager, cloud volume and cloud volume
snapshot models are used.

Signed-off-by: Gregor Berginc <gregor.berginc@xlab.si>
@gberginc gberginc force-pushed the add_amazon_block_storage_automation_models branch from 75c8922 to 62a736a Compare January 17, 2017 16:42
@miq-bot
Copy link
Member

miq-bot commented Jan 17, 2017

Checked commit xlab-si@62a736a with ruby 2.2.6, rubocop 0.46.0, and haml-lint 0.19.0
3 files checked, 0 offenses detected
Everything looks good. 🍰

@gmcculloug gmcculloug merged commit 77f0a81 into ManageIQ:master Jan 17, 2017
@gmcculloug gmcculloug added this to the Sprint 53 Ending Jan 30, 2017 milestone Jan 17, 2017
@tadeboro tadeboro deleted the add_amazon_block_storage_automation_models branch March 30, 2018 07:56
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants