Michel Loiseleur
Michel Loiseleur
At first glance, it makes sense. @abursavich Wdyt ? Anything I missed ? Do you think you can review this PR ?
> Should I create a new branch or you can fix it? @hjoshi123 Can you update your PR from @bogdankrasko branch ? Or should we create a new PR ?
> This design is very unfortunate and hopefully, given its "alpha" status, can still be addressed. A far better approach would be to have end-users apply [annotations](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/external-dns/blob/7343cb99e098074da3dcbd9f7e3cda708e723ec6/docs/annotations/annotations.md) on the `DNSEntrypoint`...
The logic seems better to me with this logic, thanks :+1: . Would you please re-add documentation on webhook and fix ci ? /retitle feat: configure arbitrary provider-specific properties via...
> The provider-properties associated with the [mikrotik](https://github.com/mirceanton/external-dns-provider-mikrotik/blob/b34ca8027f49cdd760759b481c93c32e29a2a024/internal/mikrotik/provider.go#L107L145) example cited should be named `mikrotik-…`, rather than `webhook-…`; You're right. It makes sense to include the provider name instead of webhook.
@mircea-pavel-anton as the author of microtik external provider, Wdyt ? Would it make sense for you ?
@mircea-pavel-anton Yes, you can help by doing a first review of this PR. cc @ivankatliarchuk for a second review