Skip to content

Pass kms id as parameter for uploading code with Server side encryption #693

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Mar 13, 2019
Merged

Pass kms id as parameter for uploading code with Server side encryption #693

merged 8 commits into from
Mar 13, 2019

Conversation

mvsusp
Copy link
Contributor

@mvsusp mvsusp commented Mar 11, 2019

Issue #, if available:

  • Pass kms id as parameter for uploading code with Server side encryption

Description of changes:

Merge Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR. If you're unsure about any of them, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! This is simply a reminder of what we are going to look for before merging your pull request.

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING doc
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works (if appropriate)
  • I have updated the changelog with a description of my changes (if appropriate)
  • I have updated any necessary documentation (if appropriate)

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

@mvsusp mvsusp requested a review from ChoiByungWook March 11, 2019 21:14
ChoiByungWook
ChoiByungWook reviewed Mar 11, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@ChoiByungWook ChoiByungWook left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just wondering, are there any use cases in which I might want to use a certain KMS key for my training data and another KMS key for my training script?

@ChoiByungWook ChoiByungWook requested a review from iquintero March 11, 2019 21:50
ChoiByungWook
ChoiByungWook previously approved these changes Mar 11, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@ChoiByungWook ChoiByungWook left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Spoke offline in regards to the question.
Please request second approver as well.

iquintero
iquintero previously approved these changes Mar 11, 2019
View reviewed changes
@jesterhazy
Copy link
Contributor

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • Result: FAILED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@jesterhazy
Copy link
Contributor

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • Result: FAILED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@jesterhazy
Copy link
Contributor

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • Result: FAILED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@jesterhazy
Copy link
Contributor

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • Result: FAILED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@mvsusp mvsusp dismissed stale reviews from iquintero and ChoiByungWook via 40b559c March 12, 2019 20:41
@jesterhazy
Copy link
Contributor

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • Result: FAILED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@jesterhazy
Copy link
Contributor

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • Result: FAILED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@jesterhazy
Copy link
Contributor

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • Result: FAILED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@jesterhazy
Copy link
Contributor

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • Result: FAILED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@jesterhazy
Copy link
Contributor

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • Result: FAILED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@jesterhazy
Copy link
Contributor

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • Result: FAILED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@jesterhazy
Copy link
Contributor

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • Result: SUCCEEDED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@mvsusp mvsusp merged commit ee76822 into aws:master Mar 13, 2019
@mvsusp mvsusp deleted the mvs-kms-sse branch March 13, 2019 22:44
mizanfiu pushed a commit to mizanfiu/sagemaker-python-sdk that referenced this pull request Dec 13, 2022
@mufaddal-rohawala @mufiAmazon
feature: Support Amazon SageMaker AutoMLStep (aws#718)
bc84809 
Co-authored-by: Xinlu Tu <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Xinlu Tu <[email protected]>

@xinlutu2
feat: Close feature gaps between Python SageMaker SDK and CreateAutoMLJob API includes ENSEMBLING mode (aws#681)

@xinlutu2
feature: add AutoMLStep for SageMaker Pipelines Workflows (aws#693) 

@xinlutu2
feature: add AutoMLStep integration test (aws#713)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@iquintero iquintero iquintero approved these changes

@ChoiByungWook ChoiByungWook ChoiByungWook left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@mvsusp @jesterhazy @iquintero @ChoiByungWook