Retrieving a catalog and getting the facts to submit with the catalog request
are distinct operations, and should be done separately. This is also to prepare
for adding the ability to determine the node name based on a fact, in which
case the node name needs to be determined before it is used for e
This adds the node_name_fact setting, which specifies a fact to use to
determine the node name. This allows dynamically determining the node name
without having to modify puppet.conf or command line options.
Using this setting requires modifying auth.conf to allow nodes to request
catalogs not mat
The setting node_name_value may now be used for 'puppet apply' or 'puppet
agent' to specify the name for the node. This will not affect the certificate
used by the node, and the node will still be authenticated based on its
certname. The default value for node_name_value is the certname.
This is u
These tests were stubbing when it was unnecessary, so replace much of it with
actual objects and files.
Paired-With: Jacob Helwig
Signed-off-by: Nick Lewis
---
spec/unit/application/apply_spec.rb | 95 ++---
spec/unit/configurer/fact_handler_spec.rb | 61 +--
spec/unit/configurer_spec
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:35 PM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>
> The ruby world wants gem extendible tools, I am not a huge fan but it is
> convenient and it will make us look a bit less like a wart to a certain type
> of hacker who might want to contribute so I thought going the gem route
> while more wor
On 7 Jun 2011, at 00:27, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 16:24, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>> On 7 Jun 2011, at 00:12, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 15:43, Daniel Pittman wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 13:57, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>
>>> We have a cluster of other
Daniel Pittman wrote:
> One, we are concerned that there might be cases where this adds the
> gem path, but not everything on the Ruby $LOAD_PATH, to the locations
> our autoloader (or one of the other open-coded implementations of the
> same) hunt for things on disk. That should be easy enough to
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 16:24, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
> On 7 Jun 2011, at 00:12, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 15:43, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 13:57, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>> We have a cluster of other issues in the area, though: we need to be
>> able to plugi
On 7 Jun 2011, at 00:12, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 15:43, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 13:57, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>>
So, add that comment and I am happy to see this go in. Throw my
reviewed-by on the change and you can go ahead and merge it in
On 7 Jun 2011, at 00:12, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 15:43, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 13:57, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>>
So, add that comment and I am happy to see this go in. Throw my
reviewed-by on the change and you can go ahead and merge it i
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 15:43, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 13:57, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>
>>> So, add that comment and I am happy to see this go in. Throw my
>>> reviewed-by on the change and you can go ahead and merge it into
>>> master. (I think you have the commit rights alrea
This definitely looks like a bug in URI::FTP, but rather than
monkey-patching URI::FTP (which really should go under
./lib/puppet/util/monkey_patches.rb, so all of the monkey-patching is in
the same place) it looks like we could just use the + method instead of
merge. It looks like it just Does Th
So, I've got a couple of comments on this patch series.
It really looks like all of this should be one commit, except for moving
"defaultfor :operatingsystem => :freebsd" from ports.rb to freebsd.rb
(which should be in its own commit). Not a killer, but would certainly
make it easier to review si
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 13:57, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>> So, add that comment and I am happy to see this go in. Throw my
>> reviewed-by on the change and you can go ahead and merge it into
>> master. (I think you have the commit rights already, but if not I
>> will chase Zach to get them for you.)
>
On Jun 3, 5:52 pm, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> I think we should build an entirely new Face for interacting with the
> certificate subsystem, which is a higher level abstraction over the
> concepts that the user is going to be familiar with. Something more
> akin to the "legacy" application than the
- Original Message -
>
> So, add that comment and I am happy to see this go in. Throw my
> reviewed-by on the change and you can go ahead and merge it into
> master. (I think you have the commit rights already, but if not I
> will chase Zach to get them for you.)
>
> Thanks for writin
Running `puppet secret_agent` was failing with an error in validate_args (in
interface/action.rb), because the application was trying to pass the certname
as an argument to the synchronize action. Also, it was trying to submit the
report a second time. Reviewing the code with Nick0, we found tha
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:25, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> >
>> > diff --git a/lib/puppet/configurer.rb b/lib/puppet/configurer.rb
>> > index cfeb73a..00c3b18 100644
>> > --- a/lib/puppet/configurer.rb
>> > +++ b/lib/puppet/configurer.rb
>> > @@ -156,9 +156,10 @@ class Pupp
> > - # The list of directories to search through for loadable plugins.
> > + # features uses the autoloader which causes a loop so avoid trying to
> > + # ask Gem for its path during feature loading.
> > + #
> > + # We're using a per-thread cache based on the code in
> > #module_directories
- Original Message -
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/puppet/configurer.rb b/lib/puppet/configurer.rb
> > index cfeb73a..00c3b18 100644
> > --- a/lib/puppet/configurer.rb
> > +++ b/lib/puppet/configurer.rb
> > @@ -156,9 +156,10 @@ class Puppet::Configurer
> > return
> > end
> > ensure
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 11:00:32 -0700, Jacob Helwig wrote:
>
> Adrien,
>
> The updated manufacturer_spec.rb looks good, but there should be some
> testing around the new utility module. We should really have some tests
> that show that it's returning the "System Configuration" line from that
> outp
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 01:12, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
Hey, cool code. I have some questions that really deserve answers in
the code, though, since I don't want to count on remembering the "why"
in six months time:
> This allows rubygems to be used to extend or override puppet behavior.
>
> Unfortuna
Adrien,
The updated manufacturer_spec.rb looks good, but there should be some
testing around the new utility module. We should really have some tests
that show that it's returning the "System Configuration" line from that
output (and only that line), and that it doesn't return anything if that
li
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 22:05, Luke Kanies wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:18, Nick Fagerlund
>> wrote:
>>> (For reference: https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/7783)
>>>
>>> In 2.7, we have both a "cert" application and a new "certificate"
24 matches
Mail list logo
