On Jul 25, 9:47 am, vagn scott <vagnsc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 07/25/2011 08:47 AM, jcbollinger wrote: > > > Puppet should not, and typically doesn't, apply resources that require > > a failed resource. The content of the file managed by > > File["Make_Sudo_File_Live"] is not directly relevant. > > I wonder what would happen if he spelled his > dependency chain like this: > > ### Validate sudo file before making live > Exec["Assemble_Sudo_Fragments"] ~> Exec["Validate_Check_File"] ~> > File["Make_Sudo_File_Live"]
Fair question. It is conceivable that the bug is related to chaining, and in that case it might indeed be triggered by the mixing of relationship operators. > Note a string of ~>, rather than a mixed string. > Is ~> -> even sensible? Shoudn't puppet turn that > 2nd dependency from -> into ~>? No, it shouldn't. The language guide specifically says that mixed operators are OK (it gives an example mixing "->" and "<-"), and that chains are interpreted pairwise. Thus the OP's chain should be equivalent to two separate statements: Exec["Assemble_Sudo_Fragments"] ~> Exec["Validate_Check_File"] Exec["Validate_Check_File"] -> File["Make_Sudo_File_Live"] There's nothing unreasonable about that, except maybe that the OP's version is potentially confusing to humans. Even though the correct interpretation is documented, however, it is possible that Puppet is buggy here. My money is still on the problem relating to the Exec being refresh- only, triggered by something about the particular pattern of relationships involved. But we may never know, as it seems the OP may have bowed out. John -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
