Upgrade to ansible 13#557
Conversation
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 4dcc94e59d
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| tags=dict(type='dict', default={}), | ||
| purge_tags=dict(type='bool', default=False), | ||
| tags=dict(type="dict", aliases=["resource_tags"]), | ||
| purge_tags=dict(type="bool", default=True), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When the S3 media role runs cloudfront_distribution only to add aws_cloudfront_ditribution_tags, it does not set purge_tags; this new default makes every such update call remove any existing CloudFront tags that are not in that small set. That is a behavior change from the previous module default and can silently drop externally managed cost/ownership tags, so leave the default false and keep explicit purge_tags: yes at call sites that really want it.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| streaming_distribution_config=dict(required=False, default=False, type="bool"), | ||
| list_origin_access_identities=dict(required=False, default=False, type="bool"), | ||
| list_distributions=dict(required=False, default=False, type="bool"), | ||
| list_distributions_by_web_acl_id=dict(required=False, default=False, type="bool"), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When list_distributions_by_web_acl_id: true is used, the module validates web_acl_id later but web_acl_id is absent from argument_spec, so callers cannot provide it (Ansible rejects it as unsupported), and omitting it always fails with web_acl_id has not been specified. Add web_acl_id to the spec before exposing this option.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
2 participants
No description provided.