Re: [Puppet Users] facter 3 and at_exit

I've created https://tickets.puppetlabs.com/browse/FACT-1381 Thanks again. On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:42 PM Clay Caviness <c...@boobah.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:33 PM Peter Huene <peter.hu...@puppetlabs.com> > wrote: > >> This is caused by how custom fac

Re: [Puppet Users] facter 3 and at_exit

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:33 PM Peter Huene wrote: > This is caused by how custom facts are resolved in Facter 3: namely that > custom facts are resolved all at once and no further calls from Ruby into > Facter's native implementation are expected when all resolutions

[Puppet Users] facter 3 and at_exit

I've come across an issue with facter 3, when using at_exit. Basically, any at_exit blocks that refer to anything not in the top-level namespace (pardon my terminology) trigger an 'uninitialized constant' NameError. I think this is a namespace issue of some sort, but it's beyond my ken. To

[Puppet Users] fact truth, string interpolation, and str2bool

I'm going through our puppet configuration trying to get ready for an eventual upgrade to puppet 4. One thing I'm curious about, though, is the use of str2bool. In the introduction to the future parser in the 3.8 documentation

Re: [Puppet Users] creating a (mac) package from a known good source + local patches

://puppetlabs.com/misc/download-options On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Clay Caviness ccavin...@gmail.com wrote: I need to have a way to re-create the installation package we use for facter and puppet, offline, from a known-good source. Often, we have local patches (e.g., backporting certain

[Puppet Users] creating a (mac) package from a known good source + local patches

I need to have a way to re-create the installation package we use for facter and puppet, offline, from a known-good source. Often, we have local patches (e.g., backporting certain providers from 3.x to 2.x because our servers are still on 2.x, or patching things not yet released upstream), so our

[Puppet Users] facter 1.6.18 tarball has a dangerous mac preflight script

The facter 1.6.18 tarball has many issues. First, the ext/osx/createpackage.sh script still uses packagemaker, which is deprecated. And even if it used that, there are a few references to files in the now-deleted conf/osx/ directory. So it's pretty difficult to create a Mac pkg from this, but

Re: [Puppet Users] Refresh not working with launchd service provider?

I filed http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/16271 On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Clay Caviness ccavin...@gmail.com wrote: I'm seeing the same thing. I can't actually recall the last time I verified it was working, but it _was_ at some point in the past. Currently it's not, though

Re: [Puppet Users] puppet and launchd provider and ensure = running not working

Could be related to https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/16271 I think something broke in the launchd provider somewhere... On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 7:28 PM, kegstand kegst...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think ensure = running for a service works. puppetmaster: 2.7.19 puppet on victim

Re: [Puppet Users] Refresh not working with launchd service provider?

I'm seeing the same thing. I can't actually recall the last time I verified it was working, but it _was_ at some point in the past. Currently it's not, though, at least with puppet 2.7.18 on OS X 10.8.1. Debug output shows a trigger of a refresh, but no execs are ever run: [...] notice:

[Puppet Users] ERB strangness, or ruby/puppet internals I don't understand

Let's say I have a very simple template template.erb: % if not has_variable?(foobar) then foobar = undefined end -% foobar: %= foobar % class: %= foobar.class % And a basic manifest: template.pp: $mytemp = template('template.erb') notice($mytemp) And then I apply the manifest, with an undefined

Re: [Puppet Users] Re: test manifests?

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 19:01, Nick Fagerlund nick.fagerl...@puppetlabs.com wrote: Anyway, I'm writing a short document about module testing now. Perfect. If you see other things missing in the documentation, we love getting tickets filed. Will do! -- You received this message because

[Puppet Users] test manifests?

Reading through the recently published style guide, I see http://docs.puppetlabs.com/guides/style_guide.html#tests saying: All manifests should have a corresponding test manifest in the module’s tests directory. Is there any documentation on how these work? I couldn't find anything in the

Re: [Puppet Users] test manifests?

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:29, Dan Bode d...@puppetlabs.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Clay Caviness ccavin...@gmail.comwrote: Reading through the recently published style guide, I see http://docs.puppetlabs.com/guides/style_guide.html#tests saying: All manifests should have

Re: [Puppet Users] test manifests?

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:04, Dan Bode d...@puppetlabs.com wrote: Are there examples and documentation on how they should work available anywhere? probably not, I am more than happy to discuss either here or bodepd on freenode :( Well, I'm very interested in testing in general, but it's