Assigned
Status Update
No update yet.
Comments
ch...@google.com
ch...@google.com
Hello,
Thanks for reaching out to us!
The Product Engineering Team has been made aware of your feature request, and will address it in due course. Though we can't provide an ETA on feature requests nor guarantee their implementation, rest assured that your feedback is always taken very seriously, as it allows us to improve our products. Thank you for your trust and continued support to improve Google Cloud Platform products.
In case you want to report a new issue, please do not hesitate to create a new [Issue Tracker]
Thanks and Regards,
Onkar Mhetre
Google Cloud Support
sw...@cars24.com
Specifically, this happened to us. We have a GKE cluster with two similarly-sized node pools. One has E2 nodes and the other has C2D nodes. We wanted to temporarily double the size of our E2 nodepool and checked the quotas page first. The only quota in the entire GCP project that was above 20% was "CPUs" at 55%. We reasoned that since only half of our machines were in the nodepool we wanted to double, this would only raise us to around 80-85% of quota, which seemed safe for a temporary change. We were surprised to see our scale-up fail due to quota. (And then we clumsily tried to quickly scale down to get below quota using direct GCE ASG scaling rather than GKE autoscaler, which ended up deleting a bunch of our more active machines instead of the empty ones — perhaps user error, but a bigger impact than we had expected for what we thought was going to be a simple "scale up fast, let it scale down slowly once our temporary need was over".)
Had the human-readable label in the UI said "E2 and N1 CPUs" instead of "CPUs" we would not have made that mistake: we would have tried for a smaller scale-up or requested more quota first.
I assume that the "internal"/computer-readable name `CPUS` is unlikely to change for compatibility reasons, but hopefully the UI display name is less hardcoded?
Had the human-readable label in the UI said "E2 and N1 CPUs" instead of "CPUs" we would not have made that mistake: we would have tried for a smaller scale-up or requested more quota first.
I assume that the "internal"/computer-readable name `CPUS` is unlikely to change for compatibility reasons, but hopefully the UI display name is less hardcoded?
hr...@accenture.com
I join the question on status of feature request,
this feature would keep users to use cloud native tools inside gcp ecosystem.
this feature would keep users to use cloud native tools inside gcp ecosystem.
Description
Please describe your requested enhancement. Good feature requests will solve common problems or enable new use cases.
What you would like to accomplish:
I would like to accomplish to have possibility to grant Cloud Build Approver role to specific principle (user, service-account, group...) over specific Cloud Build Trigger resource.
How this might work:
In process of granting Cloud Build Approver role to add possibility of entering CB-trigger resource over which mentioned permissions will have effect, that permissions are effective only when principle wants to initiate cloud build approver process over specific trigger, in other cases principle wouldn't have permissions to approve cloud build process.
If applicable, reasons why alternative solutions are not sufficient:
Current project level of mentioned role doesn't satisfy all use-cases (like using only gcp native tools for CI-CD operations - can't delegate to specific principle over specific build without external/third party agents like GitHub, GitLab...).
This would help to delegate responsibility, secure approve process for specific builds.
Other information (workarounds you have tried, documentation consulted, etc):
Without using external agents like GitLab.....no.