Is there a way to hide "root NS record supported"? about octodns-route53

[ross]

I don't insert the NS records as they are dynamically set by AWS

They are generated when the zone was created. They won't change after that.

and (maybe I'm wrong) the octodns-dump didn't insert them to my YAML files when I began with Octodns.

If the dump was taken (with a version) before root NS support that's probably the case. Doing a dump now should include them. There is a bit of a chicken and egg problem when creating new zones. They have to be created w/o the root NS since they're not known yet, but as soon as it is created they will be and can be added.

For me it's not really a WARNING message but an INFO message as Octodns just said it can handle NS record but the user didn't provide some.

For better or worse, all of octoDNS's best practices and standards validations are at the warning level.

The best work-around I can think of to get rid of the warning would be to create a custom provider that inherits from Route53Provider and disables SUPPORTS_ROOT_NS.

class NoRootRoute53Provider(Route53Provider):
    SUPPORTS_ROOT_NS = False

So long as that lives somewhere in PYTHONPATH your config could use it in place of the existing Route53Provider and that warnings shouldn't print (and I don't think others will, but not 100% sure there.)

[lbrachet]

Yes I understand.

I'll prefer to import NS records from AWS to my yaml files.

Thanks Ross!

[ross]

Fwiw root NS changes always require --force for safety's sake.

That said, I just pushed up octodns/octodns#1092 which is a filter processor more tailored to what you're trying to do. It will let users define all their root NS records (as you have) and keep them in check, but won't allow any changes to be made to them. By default it'll throw an error if someone tries. The error can be changed to a warning if that's preferred.

[ross]

The "preferred" solution would be to include root NS records in the yaml that match those in Route53 so that they'r fully managed/configured.

Beyond that there's no way to suppress just that warning as far as I know. Might be possible to add support for quelling it, but I'd have to think about it and look into options.

[lbrachet]

Yes, I understand.
I don't insert the NS records as they are dynamically set by AWS and (maybe I'm wrong) the octodns-dump didn't insert them to my YAML files when I began with Octodns.

For me it's not really a WARNING message but an INFO message as Octodns just said it can handle NS record but the user didn't provide some.
And if it's an INFO message, it could be hide by the --quiet command arg.

What do you think? :)

Thanks a lot for your support.

[lbrachet]

Hello Ross,

I imported all my NS records and the warnings are gone, that's great.

Then, I want to Octodns for ignoring the NS records to avoid human error to the domain.

I saw you did a processor "IgnoreRootNsFilter" that I applied to some domains to test it but the Warning came bask ^^

As you can see:

[2023-10-31T09:35:05.638Z] octodns-sync --config=./config/domains.yaml --quiet
[2023-10-31T09:35:15.576Z] 2023-10-31T09:35:13  [139832939558656] WARNING Route53Provider[route53] root NS record supported, but no record is configured for domain1.com.
[2023-10-31T09:35:15.576Z] 2023-10-31T09:35:14  [139832860866304] WARNING Route53Provider[route53] root NS record supported, but no record is configured for domain2.pt.
[2023-10-31T09:36:51.976Z] 2023-10-31T09:36:49  [139832968464192] INFO  Plan 
[2023-10-31T09:36:51.980Z] ********************************************************************************
[2023-10-31T09:36:51.980Z] No changes were planned
[2023-10-31T09:36:51.980Z] ********************************************************************************`

Maybe the module could show this Warning only if there are really not into the YAML but when the NS are in this YAML, the warning must disappear even if I'm using "IgnoreRootNsFilter".

What do you think? :)

Thanks a lot!

[lbrachet]

Thanks a lot!

Now I'm waiting for the next release :)