So I managed to make some of this work in core. I've got a very basic patch ... its not what one would call complete but I want to make sure I'm going in the right direction:
https://github.com/kbarber/puppet/commit/74d32f3d8c565567faf23f90bbd828f8528539bb So there are three sides to this ... the schema can now be obtained using resource_type: kbarber:puppet ken$ ~/Development/puppet/bin/puppet resource_type find testclass{"name":"testclass","arguments":{"arg3":null,"arg4":null,"arg1":null,"arg2":null},"line":1,"schema":{"type":"map","mapping":{"arg3":{"required":true,"pattern":"/^\\d+$/","type":"str"},"arg4":{"type":"map","mapping":{"a":{"required":true,"pattern":"/^\\d+$/","type":"str"},"b":{"required":true,"pattern":"/^\\d+$/","type":"str"},"c":{"required":true,"pattern":"/^\\d+$/","type":"str"}}},"arg1":{"required":true,"type":"str"},"arg2":{"required":true,"type":"str"}}},"type":"hostclass","file":"/Users/ken/.puppet/modules/testclass/manifests/init.pp"} kbarber:puppet ken$ If no schema is defined, you get back a schema derived from the existing arguments: kbarber:puppet ken$ ~/Development/puppet/bin/puppet resource_type find testclass2 {"name":"testclass2","arguments":{"arg3":"\"asdf\"","arg1":null,"arg2":null},"line":1,"schema":{"type":"map","mapping":{"arg3":{"required":false,"default":"asdf","type":"str"},"arg1":{"required":true,"type":"str"},"arg2":{"required":true,"type":"str"}}},"type":"hostclass","file":"/Users/ken/.puppet/modules/testclass2/manifests/init.pp"} kbarber:puppet ken$ And you now get rich validation - including things like regex pattern validation: kbarber:puppet ken$ ~/Development/puppet/bin/puppet apply ~/.puppet/manifests/site.pp Failed kwalify schema validation: [/arg4/a] 'd': not matched to pattern /^\d+$/. at /Users/ken/.puppet/manifests/site.pp:10 on node kbarber.lan kbarber:puppet ken$ I'm guess I'm just looking for direction. I want to see if people think this kind of thing is a good idea and if my implementation is correct. I have a number of concerns generally: * A separate schema file while simple - feels like it might be the wrong approach and potentially this should be in the language itself somehow. * I'm going to need to validate schema against the real argument list in the class to make sure they don't mismatch. * A schema/interface to anything can change - an ENC may need a quick way of determining if there has been a change to understand if its data needs to be re-validated. Versioning or hashes of the schema are potential approaches. * What if we want to use a different schema type in the future as apposed to kwalify? Thanks. ken. On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Ken Barber <k...@puppetlabs.com> wrote: > So on the topic of generating forms from Kwalify, I found this: > > http://robla.net/jsonwidget/ > > Which supports kwalify-like schemas to render forms using Javascript > (extra bits were added to support rendering). Here is a demo for an > address book editor for example: > > http://robla.net/jsonwidget/example.php?sample=blankaddr&user=normal > > While a bit rough - you can see it has capabilities to handle > structured data including nested elements like hashes and arrays. I > think it would be awesome to give users the power to just 'add a > class' in dashboard and be presented with a shiny form of this nature > to configure their app. The election example: > > http://robla.net/jsonwidget/example.php?sample=normal&user=advanced > > Shows off the use of context sensitive help which is derived from the > schema (click on help next to an attribute to see this). > > And > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Ken Barber <k...@puppetlabs.com> wrote: >> So I've been working on various modules that have very complex data >> requirements ... for example the bind zone configuration resource is >> fairly complex in that it can have anywhere up to 40 different >> attributes: >> >> http://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind9/cur/9.8/doc/arm/Bv9ARM.ch06.html#zone_statement_grammar >> >> Some of these attributes also require arrays and hashes to be passed >> in puppet so I can easily convert them to bind grammar. >> >> Now this is all very well and good - but I face the issue of trying to >> validate these complex structures. In answer to this I created this >> function: >> >> https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppetlabs-functions/blob/master/lib/puppet/parser/functions/kwalify.rb >> >> Which allows validation using kwalify: >> >> http://www.kuwata-lab.com/kwalify/ruby/users-guide.01.html#schema >> >> This function monopolizes kwalify schema validation techniques - so I >> can use Puppet hashes and arrays to create kwalify schemas to validate >> my resource input. Some examples: >> >> https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppetlabs-functions/blob/master/examples/kwalify-1.pp >> https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppetlabs-functions/blob/master/examples/kwalify-2.pp >> >> This is great in that I can now combine my validation into 1 data >> structure and use that to validate ... >> >> Now this in of itself is interesting but I started to think about the >> wider case. What if I wanted to validate _every_ parameter in a class >> or resource? >> >> So I created this: >> >> https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppetlabs-functions/blob/master/lib/puppet/parser/functions/validate_resource.rb >> >> This converts all the params in a class or resource into a hash, and >> goes looking for a separate schema file to use as validation. The idea >> being, I can define a module_name/manifests/init.pp file with a class >> in it, and a corresponding module_name/manifests/init.schema file for >> its complex validation. This way you can create classes in the normal >> layout structure, and have each class have a corresponding schema >> file. >> >> Some examples: >> >> https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppetlabs-functions/blob/master/examples/validate_resource-1.pp >> https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppetlabs-functions/blob/master/examples/validate_resource-1.schema >> >> https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppetlabs-functions/blob/master/examples/validate_resource-2.pp >> https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppetlabs-functions/blob/master/examples/validate_resource-2.schema >> >> So now - I can allow complex structures to be passed, and have >> validation in kwalify do most of the heavy lifting for validation ... >> but also ... if someone was keen - they could use the kwalify schema >> files - dynamically create a form in an ENC tool for parameterized >> classes data entry purposes. >> >> So the obvious debate to be made is weither this kind of complex >> validation lives in the language or not ... but I do generally feel >> that the current language support doesn't go deep enough to express >> the data needed by a class and/or an ENC tool - kwalify comes a little >> closer even if it isn't the correct implementation it certainly is >> closer to the kind of information that needs to be expressed. >> >> Anyway ... just want to put these ideas out there and see what people think. >> >> ken. >> > -- "Join us for PuppetConf, September 22nd and 23rd in Portland, OR: http://bit.ly/puppetconfsig"; -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-dev@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
