Fix backend configuration example #1042
Open
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
Adapts storagePool to match docs, creates sequence (array) with one string item
Remove extra line
Contributor
|
Have you completed the CCLA? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Change description
NetApp Google Cloud NetApp Volumes backend configuration options and examples refer to the use of
storagePoolswhereas the code example here refers tostoragePool.I assume that this should be an array, which works in my configuration.
I was alerted to this as I could see this field was being ignored in my configuration (which was based on the example provided here).
TridentBackendConfigProject tracking
Do any added TODOs have an issue in the backlog?
Did you add unit tests? Why not?
Does this code need functional testing?
Is a code review walkthrough needed? why or why not?
Should additional test coverage be executed in addition to pre-merge?
Does this code need a note in the changelog?
Does this code require documentation changes?
Additional Information