On 09/22/2015 08:17 PM, Cody Herriges wrote: > 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? >> >> >> Thanks, >> -Alex >> >> [0] >> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/puppet_openstack/2015/puppet_openstack.2015-09-15-15.00.html >> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/223672 >> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/224187 >> > > I've been mulling this over the last several days and I just can't > accept an entire ruby function which would be ran for every parameter > with the desired static value of "<SERVICE DEFAULT>" when the class is > declared and parsed. I am not generally against using functions as a > parameter default just not a fan in this case because running ruby just > to return a static string seems inappropriate and not optimal. > > In this specific case I think the params pattern and inheritance can > obtain us the same goals. I also find this a valid us of inheritance > cross module namespaces but...only because all our modules must depend > on puppet-openstacklib. > > http://paste.openstack.org/show/473655
+1 for this solution, which is straightforward and easy to maintain/implement. -1 for a fact which is (to me) more code and relying on puppet versions is something a bit dangerous, even if facts.d are supported by our CI jobs. -- Emilien Macchi
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
