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

Added and fixed shovel parameters and added vhost options and limits #66

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Galvill
Copy link

@Galvill Galvill commented Jan 11, 2024

Bumped rabbit-hole to v2.15.0
Ran all acceptance tests successfully
Replaces PR #64
It also replaces PR #55

Changes to shovel parameters:

destination_properties - Changed type from string to map
destination_publish_properties - Changed type from string to map
destination_queue_arguments - Added (map)

Important Note:
A state that contains shovel information created by an earlier version of the provider will cause an error because the provider expects "destination_properties" and "destination_publish_properties" to be of type map, but in the state, they will exist as strings.
This can be fixed by modifying the state file and changing the double quotes ( "" ) with curly brackets ( {} )

Added support for additional vhost parameters:

Description - (Optional) A friendly description.
default_queue_type - (Optional) default queue type for new queues
max_connections - (Optional) Maximum number of concurrent client connections to the vhost
max_queues - (Optional) Maximum number of queues that can be created on the vhost

@Galvill
Copy link
Author

Galvill commented Jan 16, 2024

Hi @cyrilgdn, can you please take a look at this?
Thanks.

@rfavreau
Copy link

Hi @Galvill, while waitting that your PR is merged, i forked it to my repository. Thanks to your work.
If you want to use it:

terraform {
  required_providers {
    rabbitmq = {
      source = "rfd59/rabbitmq"
      version = "2.0.0"
    }
  }
}

@angeloxx
Copy link

angeloxx commented Jun 3, 2024

Hi @cyrilgdn, can you please take a look at this? Thanks.

We're using this fork in production with success, please consider to merge it and release a new version please.

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.

3 participants