Multiple subscription support for Azure Plugin #1
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
panic-kbutton
changed the title
Signed-off-by: Kevin Button <kevin@openai.com>
panic-kbutton
force-pushed
the
multi-sub-support
branch
from
65266e4 to
16c371d
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
1. Why is this pull request needed and what does it do?
In current form, the Azure plugin will parse subscriptions across many zones and apply the last zone's subscription ID to all plugin definitions. When used across multiple subscriptions with distinct resource group names (which most subscriptions in a large tenant will have), this causes 404s when interacting with the Azure API. DNS Clients must be created within the context of a subscription; this PR moves to a client per zone.
2. Which issues (if any) are related?
N/A
3. Which documentation changes (if any) need to be made?
None - this corrects behavior to match expectations / existing documentation.
4. Does this introduce a backward incompatible change or deprecation?
don't think so