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

Update Alloy variables to use the grafana_alloy_ namespace so they are unique #209

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

Conversation

Aethylred
Copy link

This should address #206 and #194

This PR should make sure the Alloy variables are unique and won't clash with other variables (like version) used elsewhere in playbooks.

It also moves the binary and working directory out of /etc where RHEL and SELinux get upset about.

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented May 21, 2024

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

Copy link
Collaborator

@v-zhuravlev v-zhuravlev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM.

Copy link
Collaborator

@gardar gardar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please prefix the variables with alloy_ rather than grafana_alloy_ to comply with the ansible-lint rule var-naming[no-role-prefix] as the role name is alloy and not grafana_alloy

roles/alloy/defaults/main.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@ishanjainn
Copy link
Member

ishanjainn commented Jun 3, 2024

Hey @Aethylred Yeah would prefer to use alloy_ instead of grafana_alloy_

@Aethylred
Copy link
Author

Aethylred commented Jul 12, 2024

Switched to alloy_ as requested, though I suppose the code is ahead of this now.

Apologies about the delay, with the Alloy setup being immature, we switched to using the standard Grafana setup. Will be skipping Grafana Agent & Flow and waiting for Alloy.

@ishanjainn
Copy link
Member

#228

BOth of the PRs seem to achive the same thing, @Aethylred Lemme know if the other PR loogs good to you aswell and we can use that or the other way around?

@Aethylred
Copy link
Author

Looking at #228 and it looks good, I'd consider it a duplicate, but whichever crosses the line first is fine by me

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.

None yet

7 participants