On Apr 12, 2013, at 8:21 AM, tio teath <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 6:30:38 PM UTC+3, Luke Kanies wrote:
> On Apr 9, 2013, at 6:06 AM, tio teath <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, April 8, 2013 8:06:23 AM UTC+3, Luke Kanies wrote:
>> On Apr 7, 2013, at 11:59 AM, tio teath <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to use Puppet::Type::File as a base type, and add some custom
>>> properties to it without modifying original code, i.e. using separate
>>> module under puppet Puppet[:libdir]. What is best approach to achieve this?
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This might be possible, but probably will be more annoying than you want.
>> If that's not enough warning, though...
>>
>> You can *probably* create a new type and set ':parent => :file' in that
>> type. There used to be an option to retain most/all of the attributes (I
>> used this for 'tidy' before I refactored it a long time ago), but I can't
>> seem to find it now. That makes me even less confident that this will work
>> well.
>> I found this method inside of 'tidy':
>> def mkfile(path)
>> # Force deletion, so directories actually get deleted.
>> Puppet::Type.type(:file).new :path => path, :backup => self[:backup],
>> :ensure => :absent, :force => true
>> end
>> This would not save me from the implementing of all of the wanted
>> parameters, but it'll be much easier now, thanks.
>
> Yeah, this ended up being much easier to maintain, both in terms of
> understanding how Tidy worked and also in terms of the backing API that was
> only used by Tidy and no other types.
>
>>
>> Can you elaborate on what you're trying to do, and why?
>> I need agent side template rendering functionality.
>> That's because of the template data, which available only on agent and
>> could not be exposed to the master via facts due to security reason. Yeah, I
>> know that's kind a sucks, but I got this infrastructure as it was, and it's
>> not up to me to change it.
>> For the moment, I did implement this as a custom type, but with no useful
>> file's parameters like "owner", "mode", etc. So I have double resource
>> definition in the class:
>> $some_file_resource = 'path_to_file.xml'
>> file { $some_file_resource:
>> owner => someowner,
>> group => somegroup,
>> mode => 660,
>> require => My_custom_type[$some_file_resource],
>> }
>>
>> my_custom_type { $some_file_resource:
>> template =>
>> 'puppet:///modules/some_file_resource.xml.erb',
>> }
>>
>> And this is ugly. Having a single section would be much more elegant.
>
> How are you filling out the template? That is, I assume the template has
> variables that need to be evaluated; where are those being retrieved from?
> Actually, those variables are parsed from the file itself, just before it
> overwritten.
>
> My recommendation would be to create a type a bit like tidy, which compiles
> the template result and then stores it into the filebucket, and then creates
> a file resource specifying that template's content as its content. That is,
> specify the content of the file as the checksum of the template, and then
> Puppet will do all of the comparisons and such, and all you have to worry
> about is compiling the template itself.
> Could be template generation performed only if the file's or template
> checksum changes? As mentioned before, I need to parse those variables from
> the file, and it's a heavy a bit to do it each puppet run.
> Currently, I did implement checksum handling by storing them in yaml file
> inside of Puppet[:statedir]. I guess, there's better solution for that.
It sounds like you could do something like have a 'template' resource that just
generates a 'file' and 'exec' resource (or maybe 2 file resources). The 'file'
resource would pull the template down, the exec resource would recompile the
template if it's triggered by the file resource. The second file resource
might be needed to manage perms on the compiled template.
You could also have a special type for compiling the template, but my guess is
that an exec is sufficient.
And, of course, it seems like you could just do this all in a defined resource.
Why wouldn't something like this work:
define my_template($owner, $source) {
file { "/var/lib/puppet/state/$source": source =>
"puppet:///modules/templates/$source" }
exec { "rebuild_template_$name":
refreshonly => true,
subscribe => File[…],
command => "…command that rebuilds template…"
}
file { $output: owner => $owner, require => Exec[…] }
}
You need to run the command locally, but it doesn't seem like you really need a
full type for that.
>
> --
> Luke Kanies | http://about.me/lak | http://puppetlabs.com/ | +1-615-594-8199
> Join us at PuppetConf 2013, August 22-23 in San Francisco -
> http://bit.ly/pupconf13
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Puppet Developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
--
Luke Kanies | http://about.me/lak | http://puppetlabs.com/ | +1-615-594-8199
Join us at PuppetConf 2013, August 22-23 in San Francisco -
http://bit.ly/pupconf13
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
