On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:16, Nigel Kersten <ni...@puppetlabs.com> wrote:
> As per: https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/7555 > it looks like we've got some use cases around excluding some resources from > being reported on to reduce noise. This feels like solving the problem on the wrong side to me. > Should we implement a metaparameter like this? Do the use cases justify > breaking the consistency of the model (report on everything) ? This is worse than that: it bakes in the assumption that the reports are *not* a graph, or that we can just discard structural elements in that graph, by allowing us to ditch what would otherwise be a vertex. One of the proposed enhancements to the report - which I think is hugely valuable - is that we return the augmented graph from the client side, where things like file recursion, or autorequires, can change the catalog we sent down. Excluding something from that may be a huge structural change, and it is certainly going to make correlation between that graph and the original catalog extremely difficult to discover. So, no, I do not believe we should support this. Better, I think, to support that feature in our reporting tools, or make it easier for people to build that in their tools. Daniel -- ⎋ Puppet Labs Developer – http://puppetlabs.com ♲ Made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons -- 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.
