I'd be happy to see a PR against puppet-module-skeleton (https://github.com/garethr/puppet-module-skeleton) for how you envisage testing against puppet-agent to work on (on Travis in this case). That might be a good way of getting a few people from the module community to comment too.
Ditto a PR regarding how the standard acceptance tests in puppet-module-skeleton would use the puppet-agent package/facter 3. One of the issues I see at present is that no puppet-agent package exists for OSX I believe, so lots of people who currently run spec tests locally won't be able to use the puppet-agent builds at present? Gareth On 15 May 2015 at 23:28, Kylo Ginsberg <k...@puppetlabs.com> wrote: > In the next few weeks we’ll be releasing facter 3, a native (compiled C++11) > implementation of facter. Note that the only packages containing facter 3 > will be the puppet-agent packages (e.g. there will be no facter 3 gems). > > > This change may have some workflow implications for module developers, and > we’d love to get some feedback on that, ideas for improvements, etc. > > > Starting with spec tests: no change *needed* but a small caveat. > Specifically, a module can continue to test against gems using its Gemfile, > including using the latest puppet 4 and facter 2 gems. The caveat is that > those spec tests will then *not* be running against facter 3. Facter 3 > supports the facter 2 ruby api for custom facts, so that should “just work” > (and we don’t know of any issues where it doesn’t) but at the same there is > some risk there. > > > However, fear not! You can spec test against facter 3 (or more generally > against puppet-agent) like so: > > install the desired puppet-agent build > > comment out the puppet and facter lines from your Gemfile > > profit! > > > On a related note: some such puppet-agent based workflow for specs may be > the long-term direction we want to take module spec testing, so that we’re > testing against the curated combination of puppet/facter/ruby/etc that a > puppet-agent build represents, as opposed to the larger combinatorial matrix > (e.g. X puppet versions vs Y facter versions vs Z ruby versions) that many > spec tests use today. > > > Moving on to module acceptance tests: here I’d more proactively encourage > module testing to move to using puppet-agent packages for acceptance tests. > This will be a benefit both for the facter 3 issue at hand, but more > generally (as mentioned above) to ensure that acceptance tests are run > against the puppet/facter/ruby/etc combinations that PL itself tests > against. > > > Hope that all makes some sense. Please chime in with any comments. > > > Thanks, > > Kylo > > -- > Kylo Ginsberg | k...@puppetlabs.com | irc: kylo | twitter: @kylog > > PuppetConf 2015 is coming to Portland, Oregon! Join us October 5-9. > Register now to take advantage of the Early Adopter discount —save $349! > > -- > 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 puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/CALsUZFHbyrx28s0eCcrbP_NaeDBK5UGp_DJPAP5GAbUfriuHDA%40mail.gmail.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Gareth Rushgrove @garethr devopsweekly.com morethanseven.net garethrushgrove.com -- 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 puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/CAFi_6yLV-5Ps9Mm0zDKqJpqLN2KHtsDizvm8Q7b3oFc9jKRksg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
