Issue #2847 has been updated by Ken Barber. Status changed from In Topic Branch Pending Merge to Code Insufficient
So after review these are my points: 1. devices/mounts should really be 2 separate facts. I can see how they are related - but logically separate facts are going to be easy to manage from a code maintenance perspective. Also - the specs can be separated as well. 2. The work isn't done in setcode - which means the cache layer in 1.7 won't kick in. Its not critical. Also you can use facter confines instead of the if statement at the top when you do it properly which is a slightly better style. 3. Mutex synchronisation should not be needed - if there is a bug in core that makes them non-thread safe I'd rather fix it in core. The spec test also breaks in ruby 1.9.2. ---------------------------------------- Feature #2847: mountpoint fact https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/2847 Author: anarcat - Status: Code Insufficient Priority: Normal Assignee: Michael Kincaid Category: library Target version: Keywords: Branch: Affected Facter version: I have implemented, based on work by the Debian's Sysadmin team, a fact that allows listing of the mountpoints (and associated devices). I have attached the code for the fact, which is called "mountpoints" but also exports "devices". I have requested and got approval from the original author (Stephen Gran, which code can still be seen here: http://git.debian.org/?p=mirror/dsa-puppet.git;a=blob;f=facts/mounts.rb;hb=HEAD) before contacting you. To quote him: "git blame indicates that all the current code in the mounts fact is mine, so I'm happy to license it under the GPL (of any verson, as that is apparently the puppet license, at first glance) for purposes of pushing it upstream. OTOH, it is about 20 lines of fairly trivial code, so I'm not sure copyright is even an issue." Apparently, his original code was relying on the presence of the "Filesystem" Ruby library, which may not be desirable in this case, which is why I implemented a linux workaround. It's my first fact ever, so I'm very curious to see if I have done this properly or if there are possible improvements to the code. I know comments could be good... My working copy of the code is also available through git: http://git.koumbit.net/?p=puppet/modules/common.git;a=blob;f=plugins/facter/mountpoints.rb;hb=HEAD Thanks, A. -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: http://projects.puppetlabs.com/my/account -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Bugs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-bugs?hl=en.
