[openstack-dev] [puppet] service default value functions

Denis Egorenko degorenko at mirantis.com
Wed Sep 23 14:04:00 UTC 2015


+1 to way from paste above.

2015-09-23 16:42 GMT+03:00 Martin Mágr <mmagr at redhat.com>:

>
>
> On 09/23/2015 02:17 AM, 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 implementation in pastebin above. Much better solution than running
> function.
>
> Regards,
> Martin
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribehttp://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>


-- 
Best Regards,
Egorenko Denis,
Deployment Engineer
Mirantis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150923/ba8c4f0f/attachment.html>


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list