You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Ability to specify prefix lists by names rather than IDs.
Motivation
aws-load-balancer-security-group-prefix-lists service annotation expects you to provide prefix list IDs. This is rather inconvenient and makes us do custom-script preprocessing to convert prefix list names into IDs first. It would be much simpler if we can specify prefix list names directly.
Describe the proposed solution you'd like
New service annotation (e.g. aws-load-balancer-security-group-prefix-list-names) that accepts comma-separated list of prefix lists. Controller does the logic of looking up the names and converting them to IDs internally. IAM permissions are updated accordingly, if needed.
Accepting names in already existing annotation is also an option, as it will match the behaviour of security group annotation:
Both name and ID of securityGroups are supported. Name matches a Name tag, not the groupName attribute.
Is there a way to test this locally with Localstack? I have some changes ready and I would like to test them without having to setup a full AWS account and EKS cluster.
Describe the feature you are requesting
Ability to specify prefix lists by names rather than IDs.
Motivation
aws-load-balancer-security-group-prefix-lists
service annotation expects you to provide prefix list IDs. This is rather inconvenient and makes us do custom-script preprocessing to convert prefix list names into IDs first. It would be much simpler if we can specify prefix list names directly.Describe the proposed solution you'd like
New service annotation (e.g.
aws-load-balancer-security-group-prefix-list-names
) that accepts comma-separated list of prefix lists. Controller does the logic of looking up the names and converting them to IDs internally. IAM permissions are updated accordingly, if needed.Accepting names in already existing annotation is also an option, as it will match the behaviour of security group annotation:
Describe alternatives you've considered
N/A
Contribution Intention (Optional)
-[ ] Yes, I am willing to contribute a PR to implement this feature
-[x] No, I cannot work on a PR at this time
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: