Emilien Macchi wrote: > > On 09/16/2015 12:53 PM, Alex Schultz wrote: >> Hey puppet folks, >> >> Based on the meeting yesterday[0], I had proposed creating a parser >> function called is_service_default[1] to validate if a variable matched >> our agreed upon value of '<SERVICE DEFAULT>'. This got me thinking >> about how can we maybe not use the arbitrary string throughout the >> puppet that can not easily be validated. So I tested creating another >> puppet function named service_default[2] to replace the use of '<SERVICE >> DEFAULT>' throughout all the puppet modules. My tests seemed to >> indicate that you can use a parser function as parameter default for >> classes. >> >> I wanted to send a note to gather comments around the second function. >> When we originally discussed what to use to designate for a service's >> default configuration, I really didn't like using an arbitrary string >> since it's hard to parse and validate. I think leveraging a function >> might be better since it is something that can be validated via tests >> and a syntax checker. Thoughts? > > Let me add your attempt to make it work in puppet-cinder: > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/224277 > > I like the proposal, +1. >
Hunter, Do you off hand know what kind of overhead is generated by this? -- Cody
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
