On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:31:09 AM UTC-5, dirk.he...@altum.de wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently writing a custom type for managing Windows environment
> variables.
>
> A variable should be (re-)created if it doesn't exist or the value doesn't
> match the desired value. So exists? checks exactly this. It returns true
> only if the variable exists and the value matches.
>
> This, however, creates a problem when the variable should be destroyed.
> When destroying a variable, I don't care for the value anymore. I just need
> to know wether it exists or not. So I need to different tests
> (existswithvalue? and exists?).
>
> My problem now is that I don't know how to implement "ensure" for this
> case, as I cannot use "ensurable" in the type.
>
Your problem is that you are conflating distinct (for your purposes)
aspects of your resource's state. If you care at times whether the
variable is declared at all or not, and at other times what its value is,
then those should be separate properties. Your resource declarations will
then look like this:
env_var { 'AWESOMENESS':
value => 'meh',
# optional:
ensure => present
}
or
env_var { 'AWESOMENESS':
ensure => absent
}
John
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
