that worked! You're amazing. On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 2:59:13 PM UTC-5, Matt Martz wrote: > > Maybe use the |default filter like: > > until: result['status']|default(0) == 200 > > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Marcus Morris <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> So I am running 'canary' tests post CI and pre deployment to test if the >> newest code runs without error in a real environment. >> >> The tests are just hitting a url and checking that it returns 200. >> Sometimes it takes a little bit for the process I'm testing against to >> become available which means my tests will fail if I run them before the >> process is ready to serve requests. At first I was just having a pause in >> between starting the process and running the test to give it time to come >> up, but this is very brittle because that time can vary, and it is also >> very inefficient if I wait for longer than I need to. >> >> I then thought I could solve these problems by using a do-until loop. The >> problem is, there is nothing I can check for in the registered var that >> exists on both failure and success. >> >> Example: >> >> - name: run test >> uri: >> url: "https://0.0.0.0:3030/api/canary"; >> validate_certs: no >> register: result >> until: result['status'] == 200 >> >> This doesn't help because when the test fails because the url isn't ready >> to serve requests, the register variable only contains something like: >> >> { >> "changed": false, >> "failed": true, >> "msg": "Socket error: [Errno 104] Connection reset by peer to >> https://0.0.0.0:3030/api/canary"; >> } >> >> >> Therefor, the until will fail with: >> >> { >> "failed": true, >> "msg": "ERROR! The conditional check 'result['status'] == 200' failed. >> The error was: ERROR! error while evaluating conditional (result['status'] >> == 200): ERROR! 'dict object' has no attribute 'status'" >> } >> >> I thought that maybe "failed": false would exist in successful tests, but >> that is not the case. >> >> It's kind of a catch-22 because if the test succeeds the first time, I >> don't need the do-until, but if it fails, then there is nothing for the >> until to check against. >> >> Any ideas on how to handle this? >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Ansible Project" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ansible-project/f41735fb-ff5b-44a5-b898-ae645ff07e23%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ansible-project/f41735fb-ff5b-44a5-b898-ae645ff07e23%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > > -- > Matt Martz > @sivel > sivel.net >
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ansible Project" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ansible-project/250c580c-887a-49f3-9470-7ad179ff9648%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
