> >>>> + def without_noop > >>>> + old_noop = value(:noop,:cli) > >>>> + set_value(:noop, false, :cli) > >>>> + yield > >>>> + set_value(:noop, old_noop, :cli) > >>> > >>> Shouldn't this second 'set_value' be in an 'ensure' block?
> >> > >> Yes. Yes it should. > >> And IIRC it had been, in an earlier draft. *sigh* We did think of that. > > And associated test, of course. > Well duh. I was thinking about this on the way home. Rather than trying to test this in the bin/integration test as we had been, it should probably be in the unit tests for settings; that way we'll have access from the top _and_ bottom rather than just the top. The overall effect is an integration matter, but the detailed behavior of without_noop is a unit question. -- Markus --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" 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-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
