Propogate given configuration to plugin servers#3209
Propogate given configuration to plugin servers#3209nathanleclaire wants to merge 1 commit intodocker-archive-public:masterfrom
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Nathan LeClaire <nathan.leclaire@gmail.com>
|
What do you think best way to unit test this is? Through |
|
Heh... the 3rd party plugin compatibility test I was adamant about is working as intended 😛 wonder if I should submit a change to the upstream repo as well |
|
WDYT @dgageot ? Should I add to https://github.com/docker/docker-machine-driver-ci-test/blob/master/driver.go ? Or should we adopt a different approach? |
|
@nathanleclaire adding a function that every driver should implement is really cumbersome, right? |
Yes, in this case however it is not needed to make an update to the Still, I'm not sure it's the best approach exactly, and might end up throwing in a different, hackier (but more compatible) solution for the release. |
See docker-archive-public#3209 Signed-off-by: Brett Higgins <brhiggins@arbor.net>
See docker-archive-public#3209 Signed-off-by: Brett Higgins <brhiggins@arbor.net>
See docker-archive-public#3209 Signed-off-by: Brett Higgins <brhiggins@arbor.net>
|
What's the status of this? Being able to use |
Closes #3181
cc @dgageot for review -- this one is a bit tricky and we need to define what our expectations are around API breakage / versioning. Because this would introduce a call to a RPC endpoint which won't be present in all cases. I'm open to other ideas if you have them of course.
I guess my feeling is that in this case, we are creating a brand new method, and if we try to call it but it's not there, nothing is different than it was before (when the plugin servers weren't getting the propagated config information anyway) and we can keep moving forward. It doesn't break existing plugins (shouldn't at least), just adds a new method.
Signed-off-by: Nathan LeClaire nathan.leclaire@gmail.com