Please review pull request #679: (#13898) Fail Face when option collides w/ setting opened by (jeffweiss)
Description:
Change Puppet::Interface::Option to prohibit options on Faces that have
the same name as an existing Puppet setting.
Move functionality of Puppet::Util::
Hi all,
Those of you two track my puppet fork on github already know this, but I
produced a few potentially interesting prototypes while I was at EclipseCon a
couple of weeks ago. None of them are something we could merge in, but they're
at least interesting and might be something worth at lea
On Apr 17, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Eric Sorenson wrote:
> Hi, I got approval from $WORK to post up a little face I wrote called
> puppet-minicat[1], and I'd like to solicit feedback on it -- it was my first
> foray into Faces and I'm not sure whether I'm doing things right. (That I
> was able to get
I just bisect with `rspec spec/[a-m]* spec/my/failing_spec.rb`, and
then narrow it down that way. The script is a faster way to do that.
I never found debugger inspection very useful compared to bisection
because the source is often very, very opaque and distant - so unless
I knew what I was look
Yeah, unfortunately, commenting out large swaths and then adding back in a
little bit at a time is about the best weapon I've found to combat those
situations so far. Would love to hear if anyone has found anything better.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Jeff McCune wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 20
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Chris Price wrote:
> Doh. I didn't click through to your gist before I replied. It looks like
> you've already identified the problematic test, so most of what I posted
> will be of no use to you. :(
Well, I know my test works in isolation, but I don't know w
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 17:27, Jeff McCune wrote:
> I'm working on fixing up a module and I've written a test that triggers the
> bug against Puppet 2.7.x. I'm running into a problem where I get 0 failures
> when I run `rake test` or `rspec --format d spec/` but I get the failure I'm
> expecting
Doh. I didn't click through to your gist before I replied. It looks like
you've already identified the problematic test, so most of what I posted
will be of no use to you. :(
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Jeff McCune wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> I'm working on fixing up a module and I've wri
On Apr 17, 2012, at 5:27 PM, Jeff McCune wrote:
> Here's the gist of what's going on:
1,000 Internets for the correct use of "gist." :)
r
--
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@go
Nick Lewis has a script that you can grab from here:
https://gist.github.com/1217637
If you know the order that your tests ran it, this will help you narrow it
down to the particular two that are interfering with one another
(accomplished via a sort of binary search, running half of the number of
So the decision is that we are going to leave the $::var vs. $var issue as it
currently stands. This is because, as RI points out, simply dropping node is
something we are not yet ready to do. There also doesn't seem to be any urgent
need to directly address the variables declared in the node sc
Hey everyone,
I'm working on fixing up a module and I've written a test that triggers the
bug against Puppet 2.7.x. I'm running into a problem where I get 0
failures when I run `rake test` or `rspec --format d spec/` but I get the
failure I'm expecting if I run the spec file directly with
rspec s
Hi, I got approval from $WORK to post up a little face I wrote called
puppet-minicat[1], and I'd like to solicit feedback on it -- it was my first
foray into Faces and I'm not sure whether I'm doing things right. (That I was
able to get this far at all is thanks to Brice's awesome compiler blog
- Original Message -
> From: "Andrew Parker"
> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 11:21:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in Telly
>
>
> On Apr 17, 2012, at 1:31 PM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>
> > - Original Message -
> >> Fro
On Apr 17, 2012, at 1:31 PM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Andrew Parker"
>> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:21:23 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in Telly
>>
>> Other than because of bugs, facts are im
- Original Message -
> From: "Andrew Parker"
> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:21:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in Telly
>
>
> On Apr 17, 2012, at 10:08 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
> >
> > We then started going down the rout
On Tue Apr 17 20:19:22 UTC 2012 pull request #194 was closed.
(maint) add precise config for mono install tests requested by (justinstoller)
The pull request was merged by: justinstoller
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pu
*wouldn't
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Ken Barber wrote:
>> True. So what I suggested was either give nodes a special status to change
>> the top-scope, which seems to be universally acknowledged as a bad idea.
>
> I would define it as 'universally acknowledged'. As an incremental
> change i
> True. So what I suggested was either give nodes a special status to change
> the top-scope, which seems to be universally acknowledged as a bad idea.
I would define it as 'universally acknowledged'. As an incremental
change its not a bad idea, since it works in with what we've got. If
we're goi
On Apr 17, 2012, at 10:08 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>
> We then started going down the route of saying all this leaky scope stuff
> is bad, its magical, its non deterministic, when you read a piece of code
> you have no idea what data you are actually looking at. Is it a fact, or
> a variable, a
Please review pull request #194: (maint) add precise config for mono install tests opened by (justinstoller)
Description:
Opened: Tue Apr 17 19:09:50 UTC 2012
Based on: puppetlabs:master (34720321759d4250abddeda5f9518e4dbcaf8465)
Requested mer
Please review pull request #678: (#13957) Allow to revoke certificates by specifying its serial number opened by (asquelt)
Description:
Opened: Tue Apr 17 18:55:23 UTC 2012
Based on: puppetlabs:master (7e22550553515cc90ae94c5e7c847f15c0313119)
Please review pull request #677: (#13070) Fix undefined method 'downcase' for nil:NilClass Error opened by (jeffmccune)
Description:
Without this patch puppet describe --list blows up with the
mount_providers module with the following error:
root@ubuntu-10:/etc/puppetlab
Puppet 2.7.14rc1 is a maintenance release candidate for Puppet in the
2.7.x series.
This release is on the heels of Puppet 2.7.13 because our regular
monthly release for April got preempted by our security release.
Downloads are available:
* Source http://downloads.puppetlabs.com/puppet/puppet-2
On Tue Apr 17 17:07:56 UTC 2012 pull request #62 was closed.
New module face will be in Puppet 2.7.14, not 2.7.12. requested by (haus)
The pull request was merged by: nfagerlund
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Deve
(it would help a lot if you set your mail client to text only as is the
convention on the list)
- Original Message -
> From: "Andrew Parker"
> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 5:47:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in Telly
>
>
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Eric Sorenson wrote:
> Was this discussion off-list? I don't see any follow-ups on puppet-dev to
> Chris' original post.
Ah, yes. Evidently it was. Sorry about that.
-Jeff
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet D
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Andrew Parker wrote:
>
> Since one person's magic is another's reasonable semantics, would you might
> explaining or pointing me to your understanding of what is "magical" and
> what is not?
>
IMO, more magic would be "merging top and node scope" but not allowing
On Apr 17, 2012, at 9:21 AM, James Turnbull wrote:
>
> Whilst I'm not so keen on the @facts syntax I agree with RI. We already
> have magic variables (which have changed their magical properties
> several times since my involvement with the project) we don't need
> anymore magic.
>
Since one pe
I'd like to add a vote to the direction that RI and James are taking this.
Variables have been painful from the beginning and it would be nice to
have a seriously concrete system to work with.
When making this decision, please look at how class auto-scoping
(modules/foo vs. modules/bar/foo) will
On Apr 17, 2012, at 9:15 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>>
>> What I am trying to address is issue of what it means for a node to
>> shadow a top-scope variable. Another possible solution is that we
>> just remove node from the language. Then the entire issue goes away,
>> but everything is still possibl
> We should either say we have a data story that revolves around:
>
> - facts
> - parameterized classes
> - ENCs and systems like Hiera
>
> these are all hard non magical things, you know where your variables come
> from. You know what they are and what can override them. Mix in the @facts
> sty
- Original Message -
> From: "Andrew Parker"
> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 5:05:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in Telly
>
>
> On Apr 17, 2012, at 2:03 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>
> > I like the general idea for sure, but
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Andrew Parker wrote:
>
> On Apr 16, 2012, at 11:00 PM, Ken Barber wrote:
>
> Sounds like a great change Andy. I'd be wary about version - I can't think
> of one now bit there might be a case where people ref top scope, but now
> they get node scope which may be sur
Question: If a node declaration masks a top-scope variable, is there ever a
good reason to refer to the old value?
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Andrew Parker wrote:
>
> On Apr 17, 2012, at 2:03 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
>
> > I like the general idea for sure, but I think it still leaves way too
On Apr 17, 2012, at 2:03 AM, R.I.Pienaar wrote:
> I like the general idea for sure, but I think it still leaves way too much
> magic and layering and things that kind of needs to be studied to be
> understoof
> rather than just be obvious.
>
> So I'd like to just mention that a few of us thinks
On Apr 16, 2012, at 11:00 PM, Ken Barber wrote:
> Sounds like a great change Andy. I'd be wary about version - I can't think of
> one now bit there might be a case where people ref top scope, but now they
> get node scope which may be surprising and may break code perhaps?
>
Exactly, which is
Hi,
On Monday, 16 April 2012 21:12:48 UTC+1, Ken Barber wrote:
>
> You know that feature in git, where it does the 'right thing' when you
> don't provide a pager and pages anyway, and it disables colors at the
> right time? I love it so much, I added this feature to facter
> structured facts & col
- Original Message -
> From: "Ken Barber"
> To: puppet-dev@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 7:00:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Changes to variable scoping in Telly
>
>
>
> Sounds like a great change Andy. I'd be wary about version - I can't
> think of one now bit t
39 matches
Mail list logo
