After doing some digging and poking around, I have found out why it is
doing what it is doing, and why include and param syntaxes work differently.
There are a few different ways to fix this, but the implications are
somewhat wide reaching and there isn't an easy fix.
The basic problem is that nodes get loaded as classes - "node ubuntu" and
"node /ubuntu/" both load a class named "ubuntu" while "node /ubunt./"
loads a class named "ubunt.".
Using param syntax ( class { 'ubuntu': } ) the class gets loaded regardless
of which type of node def you use, while using include syntax, it only gets
loaded for the wild card regex node name ( node /ubunt./ ).
There are two general ways this can be fixed.
1) Make include syntax work like param syntax, where the class always gets
loaded.
2) Disallow nodes and classes to have the same name all together
2 isn't that good of an option, and would not be an option in the 2.7 or
3.x lines under SemVer, as it would be backwards incompatible, so 4.x would
be the minimum target for it.
For 1.. there are a few ways I have been able to come up with, but none
they all have potentially far reaching implications.
a) munge the class names if the class is a node
b) use a new scope level for nodes (this would also allow node level
variables to be accessible in classes, which they currently are not)
Both of these options have potential to break things. I somewhat like
option a, but I am not familiar with the code to be able to be sure that
all access points to that name would properly munge/demunge so as to be
transparent / not break existing code, if that is even possible.
With option b, I also cannot think of any way to do it that would be
compatible with existing code.
Does anyone have any thoughts / ideas? Is this even something that "needs"
to be fixed in the 2.7.x or 3.x code bases?
This bug isn't something that impacts me personally - I just thought it
looked interesting. I don't have any uses cases that would need to do this,
but I can see how in some cases it would be useful, especially when it
comes to bootstrapping.
Details of #1372 are at http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/1372
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Developers" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-dev/-/FR2eGTDbCjUJ.
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.
