On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Alex Harvey <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 12:36:05 PM UTC+11, Andy Parker wrote: > > I'm a little late in sending this one out. I've been head down trying to >> understand #9862 and the implications of that :) > > [...] > >> * #9862 - Working on this right now. Alex Harvey has as well by the >> looks of the issue in redmine :) > > > To be honest I discovered #9862 several months ago while I was trying to > figure out why puppet 2.7 wasn't working on my Solaris 2.6 test host. I > didn't know there was an open bug for it and just assumed it was something > to do with me being stupid expecting puppet to run on Solaris 2.6. > Eventually I decided 'no such group' was a red herring and a different > solution to that problem emerged. Still, I did wonder at length why there > would be a method 'service_user_available?' but no similar method > 'service_group_available?'. > > I rediscovered it the other day after the same bug apparently was now > stopping every host in my development environment from working after > upgrading to puppet 3. Being no less stubborn I couldn't bring myself to > put a group 'puppet' on all my hosts that otherwise wouldn't do anything. > But what are the chances you would be personally trying to figure out the > exact same issue out at the exact same time? > > I had actually had the bug open to update as I was looking into it and was typing in things I found as I went through. When I tried to submit, it said that the bug had been changed. I updated and found your amazingly complete writeup that outlined what I had just found :) > And having now looked at your solution, I tried to solve it almost exactly > the same way too - I also cloned service_user_available to make a > service_group_available? - except it didn't work for me because I had no > method group.exists? and didn't know what to do. So I threw my hands in > the air and wrote that lengthy update to the redmine ticket whereas I now > see all I needed to do was put user.rb and group.rb next to each other in a > text editor and the last piece of the puzzle would have been obvious! :) > It took a few minutes for me to figure out that the user type had been hacked to allow this use of it. I felt dirty doing it to group too, but I couldn't see another way. I suppose I could call "user.provider.exists?" instead of creating the method on user/group, but I'm not sure if I like that either. Exposing the method on the type seemed like the least objectionable way and seems to point to a need for types to expose methods for manipulating and querying the resource programatically. > > (And true, I didn't spot that other issue you did that caused you to add > the if ... elsif ... else block. Still. :) > Have you tried the branch ? Does it fix the problems in your situation? > -- > 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/-/lFPanbYgbGgJ. > > 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. > -- 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.
