On Oct 16, 2009, at 7:42 AM, Markus wrote:
>
>>>>>> + 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.
Exactly.
--
When your work speaks for itself, don't interrupt.
-- Henry J. Kaiser
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
