Use theforeman upstream cloud_connector role

[sbernhard]

No description provided.

[maximiliankolb]

Suggested change

	- theforeman.operations.cloud_connector
	- theforeman.operations.cloud_connector

[maximiliankolb]

I was expecting this to show up on Ansible Galaxy: https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/collections/theforeman/index.html Unsure why because I found https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-operations-collection/blob/develop/galaxy.yml#L2

Diff LGTM from a branding perspective.

[chris1984]

I was expecting this to show up on Ansible Galaxy: https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/collections/theforeman/index.html Unsure why because I found https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-operations-collection/blob/develop/galaxy.yml#L2

Diff LGTM from a branding perspective.

Downstream I guess we will have to branch this instead of pulling the gem in and changing this back to Satellite Operations. Does that sound correct @ShimShtein If so that could cause some overhead for the delivery team.

[ehelms]

This alone won't work either -- all of the variables in this template are expecting the redhat.satellite_operations variables. I think the path forward is to create two templates and not try to play a game of branding.

[sbernhard]

Understand. Thanks for your feedback.
I have not test system right now for this change but, what do you think about changing the vars in that way, that they don't have foreman/satellite in their name. The template can then set foreman_cloud_connector_* or satellite_cloud_connector_* accordingly.

[ShimShtein]

I think we can start with renaming the vars to something that is project-neutral, but Eric's idea of replacing the template looks like a way forward if we want to properly brand this.

@adamruzicka , do we have a how-to guide for branding for_feature calls?

[adamruzicka]

What would you like to brand there?