provider/aws: Supporting New AWS Route53 HealthCheck additions (supersedes #3741) #4564
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
|
Thanks @catsby - this looks good to me. As long as the acceptance tests pass then i'm good :) |
5 tasks
catsby
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 14, 2016
provider/aws: Supporting New AWS Route53 HealthCheck additions (supersedes #3741)
|
I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues. If you have found a problem that seems similar to this, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further. |
ghost
locked and limited conversation to collaborators
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hey @stack72 – I merged #3688 then found your #3741, so I then pulled your branch down and rebased, doing my best to clean up conflicts. The result is this PR, could you give it a pass and let me know if it's good? The acceptance test passes, but there was some difference in how the two pr's defined
measure_latencyCloses #3741
Fixes #3273