remove functionality which should have been removed for Ansible 2.9 #1508
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
Fred-sun
reviewed
Mar 29, 2024
| public_ip_address_name: testPublicIP | ||
| frontend_ip_configurations: | ||
| - name: frontendipconf0 | ||
| public_ip_address: testPublicIP |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add backend_address_pools. Before the deletion, backend_address_pools has a default value if it is not configured
Suggested change
| public_ip_address: testPublicIP | |
| public_ip_address: testPublicIP | |
| backend_address_pools: | |
| - name: backendaddrp0 |
| public_ip_address_name: testPublicIP1 | ||
| frontend_ip_configurations: | ||
| - name: frontendipconf0 | ||
| public_ip_address: testPublicIP1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add backend_address_pools. Before the deletion, backend_address_pools has a default value if it is not configured
Suggested change
| public_ip_address: testPublicIP1 | |
| public_ip_address: testPublicIP1 | |
| backend_address_pools: | |
| - name: backendaddrp0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
just to confirm, both load balancers will use the same backend address pool?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, you can define it differently. Thank you!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so I should use different backends for each one:
+ backend_address_pools:
+ - name: backendaddrp0
and
+ backend_address_pools:
+ - name: backendaddrp1
I will run the integration tests again too just to make sure.
Fred-sun
added
medium_priority
…y which should have been removed for Ansible 2.9 As found in #65745, these two modules contain options which were supposed to be removed in Ansible 2.9. Since the sanity check didn't find the corresponding module.deprecate() calls, no issue was created and these deprecations were apparently forgotten. Fixes ansible-collections#77
Fred-sun
added
ready_for_review
xuzhang3
approved these changes
May 20, 2024
Justwmz
pushed a commit
to Justwmz/azure
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 4, 2024
…y which should have been removed for Ansible 2.9 (ansible-collections#1508) As found in #65745, these two modules contain options which were supposed to be removed in Ansible 2.9. Since the sanity check didn't find the corresponding module.deprecate() calls, no issue was created and these deprecations were apparently forgotten. Fixes ansible-collections#77
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.
SUMMARY
I pulled the code from this PR ansible/ansible#65749 and updated the integration test cases to pass.
Here is the original description:
As found in #65745, these two modules contain options which were supposed to be removed in Ansible 2.9. Since the sanity check didn't find the corresponding module.deprecate() calls, no issue was created and these deprecations were apparently forgotten.
Fixes #77
ISSUE TYPE
COMPONENT NAME
azure_rm_loadbalancer
azure_rm_networkinterface
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The following integration tests were run
And all passed