John,
We're seem to be talking past each other here. The description in HI-14
mentions facts specifically and that too is available. I can declare
this for instance:
days_up: "%{scope('system_uptime.days')}"
or simply:
days_up: "%{system_uptime.days}"
and it returns the 'days' item from the structured fact 'system_uptime'.
IMO, that's "traversing structured data in interpolation tokens, with
especial focus on structured fact values" but it's obviously not what
you're looking for.
Can you be more specific in what way the issue description doesn't match
the implementation?
Thanks,
- thomas
On 2015-04-01 21:00, John Bollinger wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 9:01:52 AM UTC-5, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
On 2015-03-31 14:57, John Bollinger wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 8:24:30 AM UTC-5, John Bollinger
wrote:
Would someone please explain a little more about HI-14,
though, and especially about how the change implemented to
fix that issue actually addresses it at all? The issue
description is about traversing structured data in
interpolation tokens, with an especial focus on structured
fact values, but the "fix" seems to have been to modify the
interpretation of /keys/. Either I'm misunderstanding
something, or that doesn't address the issue at all.
Kylo? Anybody? Bueller?
A key can be qualified and consist of several segments. Let's
assume that the first segment is the key of some structured data.
The remaining segments of the key will then navigate in that data.
Example:
$ hiera user
{"name"=>"kim", "home"=>"/home/kim"}
$ hiera user.name <http://user.name>
kim
Yes, I follow that this is the new behavior that HI-14 implements. My
point is that *it is not the feature that HI-14's description
requests*, nor that either of the issues marked as dupes of HI-14
requests. As such,
1. HI-14 appears to have been closed inappropriately. The issue it
describes (and that at least two dupes of it *also* requested) has
not been fixed.
2. To the best of my knowledge, the change to key interpretation that
was actually implemented does not correspond to any accepted issue.
I have concerns here both about the process and about the result.
With respect to process, we appear to have had a behavior change
implemented that was never accepted -- a breaking change, no less.
The change that was accepted for implementation is something different
and as-yet unimplemented. With respect to result, we have a change
that breaks existing sites without warning, acknowledgement, or even
any particularly good justification. I cry "foul"!
John
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Puppet Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/fc95b2f5-e5e0-402a-8c0d-1e9fcf0a82ab%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/fc95b2f5-e5e0-402a-8c0d-1e9fcf0a82ab%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet
Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to puppet-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/551C6E8C.2080907%40puppetlabs.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
