Michel Loiseleur

@mcharriere That makes sense to me. It looks clear from a user perspective. cc @Raffo @szuecs

@ivankatliarchuk There has been no release with #4946, so I do not see any blocker to go straight to step 3 and release next version with this new flag. >...

/ok-to-test

Mmmh :thinking: I guess it's also the case for other providers. @kevinfrommelt Do you think you can update this PR to solve this for all providers ?

At first glance, it should do it :+1: !

@kevinfrommelt You'll need to add test for `endpoint/provider_specific_property_filter.go` Btw, wdyt of logging a warning when there is property not related to the provider ? Is there legitimate / expected use...

There is no answer from PR author, so I'll close this PR. Feel free to re-open or open a new one if you need it.

Without further information, I'll close this issue. Feel free to open a new one, or re-open this one, if needed.

@mat285 No PR are reviewed or merged without test. BTW, as the dns hostname is limited to 63 characters, wdyt of returning a SoftError (and so log it) ?

/ok-to-test @mat285 Do you think you can rebase this PR ?