On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 3:13 AM, David Schmitt <david.schm...@puppet.com> wrote: > > > On 24 October 2016 at 17:32, <aschu...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 12:48:44 PM UTC-6, David Schmitt wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> thank you for voicing your feedback. I can't do my work without it. >>> >>> On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 10:49:45 AM UTC-7, asch...@redhat.com >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> So I've recently noticed the deprecation notices for the validate_* and >>>> is_* functions withing stdlib. As a consumer of the stdlib who currently >>>> needs to continue to support puppet 3 and hasn't moved to puppet 4 typing >>>> for ~40 modules, this is a giant pain. >>> >>> >>> If you are not yet prepared to make the switch, please stay with stdlib >>> 4.12. >>> >>>> >>>> Additionally we do not require (nor leverage) any of the old edge cases >>>> that are trying to continue to be maintained under the validate_legacy >>>> function. >>> >>> >>> validate_legacy and the Compat types are not supposed to continue to >>> maintain the mess that were the validate_ functions. They are designed to >>> help you migrade in an incremental fashin, to leverage the new datatypes, >>> without forcing your complete installation to switch ot once into the new >>> world. If you have that kind of control over your modules, or you already >>> know that you're hitting none of the edge cases, you can of course choose to >>> do the switch in a single step. >>> >>>> >>>> Is there a reason we can't just keep these is_* and validate_* >>>> functions as is without the deprecation and/or just fix these in a newer >>>> version of stdlib? >>> >>> >>> You can. Stay with stdlib 4.12. >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Is there some additional info as to why this decision was made? >>> >>> >>> We want to start using the "new" puppet 4 features in the supported >>> modules to show off the improvements you can gain through them. The >>> deprecation and validate_legacy functions are intended to help the whole >>> ecosystem make this transition without having a flag day where everyone has >>> to switch. >>> >>> Using datatypes has a number of advantages over the validate functions: >>> * high expressivity: look through the Compat types to see what the >>> functions *actually* tested. They accept surprising types and leak weird >>> edge cases. Using datatypes removes a huge trap, and allows much stricter >>> specifications. >>> * documentability: puppet-strings will surface datatypes in the generated >>> HTML. validate method calls are invisible. >>> * core features: you can leverage the expressivity of datatypes using the >>> =~ match operator and assert_type everywhere you previously used validate >>> and is functoins, and the results have a much better chance of meeting >>> everyone's expectations >>> * extensiiblity: it is very easy to define custom types that match a >>> module's domain, while it is very obscure to create your own validate >>> functions. >>> >> >> >> Shouldn't these types of deprecation occur in a major version like in the >> 5.x series? > > > Others already have answered this. > >> >> I get the desire to move forward on these types of changes but the >> problem I have is mostly with the forced (and silent) implementation of >> these things mid 4.x. > > > This is not mid-4.x. I expect this to be one of the very last 4.x releases. > There are a few bug fixes currently in flight around IP validation, but I > see no reason to delay a stdlib 5.x release for much longer. > >> >> Swapping out these changes mid 4.x series is not a very good transition >> path for the end user. The problem I ran into while attempting to address >> these deprecations is that the validate_legacy does not exist until 4.13 >> which would force our minimum required stdlib from the current >= 4.0.0 < >> 5.0.0 to >= 4.13.0 < 5.0.0. I also don't think the validate_legacy works >> under puppet 3. See >> http://logs.openstack.org/71/389271/1/check/gate-puppet-aodh-puppet-unit-3.8-centos-7/e89cc6b/console.html.gz#_2016-10-20_16_36_40_481087 > > > To quote the stdlib readme on validate_legacy: "Note: This function relies > on internal APIs from Puppet 4.4.0 (PE 2016.1) onwards, and doesn't work on > earlier versions."
Yes I see that now. I think this is a case where being giant, bold and first would have been useful. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/23/internet-is-becoming-unreadable-because-of-a-trend-towards-light/ > >> The stdlib module is so ingrained in the community, I just think this >> transition needs better thought around the impact to the end user. Just >> pinning to <= 4.12.0 is not a quality answer because it just delays the >> problem and can lead to incompatibilities between modules that continue to >> attempt to support both puppet 3 and 4. > > > Only deployments (not modules) should pin to <= 4.12.0. This is a decision > each site needs to make on their own schedule. The upgrade path was > specifically designed to avoid requiring coordination between modules. > >> >> Puppet 3 is not EOL just yet and enterpise customers are always late >> adopters so realistically these types of issues will only get larger for the >> foreseeable future. > > > The whole stdlib/ntp/puppet4 feature transition is only useful/usable to > people who are already on puppet4. Pulling the trigger on it now, while > people are still under support and can be assisted with the arising issues > seemed much better than waiting until they drop out of support, and then > pull the rug under their feet. > >> >> Unfortunately for the puppet openstack modules which is what I'm working >> on specifically, we won't be officially dropping puppet 3 support until >> after the current cycle which ends in March 2017 and we may need newer >> version of stdlib. > > > The deprecation function defaults to emitting no warnings under puppet3. > Using validate_legacy - like all puppet 4 features - will break your puppet3 > users anyways. Which specific issues do you have using other stdlib features > on puppet 3? > >> This just seems like something that would be better suited for the next >> major version than trying to do it mid stdlib 4.x and let people opt in to >> it as puppet 3 support fully dies off. >> >> Thanks, >> -Alex >> >> p.s. I'm not sure that "if $var =~ Stdlib::Compat::Array" is nearly as >> convenient (or readable) as if is_array($var) and trying to use standard >> types instead of just validate_re is just painful. > > > The ::Compat:: types are specifically designed for enabling the step out of > the validate_ functions, and should not be used in any other case. If you > look at their implementation, you'll see the limitations of the legacy > functions. After getting off the validate_ and is_ functions, you can use > the plain core types like this: > > if $var =~ Array[String] { # or whatever element type you're expecting Yea I'll just agree to disagree on this one. It was more of the syntax choice I was referring to. > > Regular expressions are a first-class construct in puppet 4, so you don't > need to use type validation at all: > > if $var =~ /^some re$/ { # > https://docs.puppet.com/puppet/4.7/reference/lang_data_regexp.html#syntax > > > Much better than hiding your type expectations in run-time checks is putting > the expected types into the class definition, where they can easily be found > by your callers, extracted into documentation by puppet-strings, and > produces error messages at the call-site, and not within your module. > I don't necessarily agree that is_array is hiding my type expectations. I think that's dependent on how the end user is consuming puppet. I think this is where something that is better for developers does not necessarily translate or make the end user's life better/easier. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain these issues. I think much of my issue around this change was really expectations on how it was conveyed. As an end user who may not be deeply entrenched in many of these technical changes between 3/4 (as they are not strict requirements for our use cases), some these items are not clear based on what is presented. My first experience with this is a bunch of unhelpful warnings and exceptions in my logs. In this case I think there were a few things that would have been beneficial: 1) Include more details in the deprecation notice including a time frame. For example, "The is_string function is deprecated and will be removed in 5.x" It's simple to understand and as an end user provides a time frame to which I need to respond. Additionally it includes the function name that is deprecated. The message that is provided "Warning: This method is deprecated, please use the stdlib validate_legacy function, with Stdlib::Compat::String. There is further documentation for validate_legacy function in the README." provides some hinting as a way forward but it's not really clear to the end user for the next steps or when this needs to be addressed. The validate_legacy recommendation should probably live in README and not the actual warning. This is where much of my confusion came from as the validate_legacy is technically not a drop in replacement for me due to the puppet 4.4 requirement. 2) Deprecation notices in the documentation should be *bold* and first with a clear recommended alternative or proposed path forward. It appears that none if the is_ or validate_ functions are marked as deprecated in the documentation. https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppetlabs-stdlib#is_absolute_path 3) I'd put the puppet 4.4 requirement first under validate_legacy (also bold). I'm not sure this should be pushed forward as the first alternative. It seems like it might be useful for transition periods but it seems like it might be better to just switch unless there's a really good reason to rely on historic edge cases. But that's just how I've interpreted it after all of this. Thanks, -Alex > > Regards, David > >>>> Having to go through our modules and switch out to the validate_legacy >>>> functions is an effort we don't have the resources to undertake and the >>>> deprecation notices aren't something we can live with as they make it very >>>> hard to figure out when something actually breaks. >>> >>> >>> Please see the documentation for the deprecation function in the stdlib >>> readme on how to turn on/off deprecations in different situations (via >>> puppet configuration on your master, or a environment variable during >>> testing). You always have the possibility to stay on stdlib 4.12 until you >>> are ready to start your upgrade project. >>> >>>> >>>> Additionally I'd like to point out that the deprecation notices make it >>>> next to impossible to figure out what is deprecated, see >>>> http://logs.openstack.org/89/388589/1/gate/gate-puppet-openstack-integration-4-scenario001-tempest-centos-7/fc2567b/console.html#_2016-10-19_22_24_59_667975 >>>> >>> >>> Crap. I missed that one. I'm currently at puppetconf, and travelling home >>> afterwards, so I won't be able to look into it immediately, but I've created >>> https://tickets.puppetlabs.com/browse/MODULES-3993 to track this, and will >>> get to it next week. Until then, grepping for 'validate_|is_' is probably a >>> good first approximation of everything you'll need to address. >>> >>> >>> Cheers, David >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >> Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/puppet-dev/ruPhY0Oks6A/unsubscribe. >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/7d10843f-4647-4e07-acea-95bd765431b4%40googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/puppet-dev/ruPhY0Oks6A/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/CALF7fHbjSNS6tAcPyScMn%3DU66iK6AK22zQ444dv1zxJORFafcA%40mail.gmail.com. > > 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/CAFsb3b6yA6FKc5f5%2Bsj0HCExadjbMgBUbvsauZ64JHGbdPev0w%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
