On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:07 PM, donavan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 1, 2:41 pm, Matt Robinson <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ugh, another case of trying to fix auditing breaking other stuff. I'm >> looking into this. I've got a quick and dirty patch that fixes this, >> but I want to see if there's a better way. >> >> diff --git a/lib/puppet/type/file/content.rb >> b/lib/puppet/type/file/content.rb >> index 5223ee3..430d5a2 100755 >> --- a/lib/puppet/type/file/content.rb >> +++ b/lib/puppet/type/file/content.rb >> @@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ module Puppet >> def each_chunk_from(source_or_content) >> if source_or_content.is_a?(String) >> yield source_or_content >> - elsif source_or_content.nil? && resource.parameter(:ensure) && >> [:present, :file].include?(resource.parameter(:ensure).value) > > Forgot to mention, don't forget all the other supported digest types > in Puppet::Util::Checksums. Would hate to punish people who went out > of their way to do the right thing and use sha1. May be easier (and > expensive?) to call Puppet::Util::Checksums.checksum? > (resource.parameter(:content)).
Thanks for the suggestion. I ended up rearranging the if statement a bit so that we didn't need as much && logic. I mailed the patch to the list just now, and will merge it shortly into 2.6.next. I'll also attach my branch to the ticket (#6541) in case that's easier for anyone who wants to test. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
