Hi Felix,
I think I have this sorted now with the log level stuff that denmat
suggested.
Basically it was a typo in my test but my point was I could not get to see the
catalogue that my test was testing against.
Puppet file:
concat::fragment{'foo':
path => '/etc/foo',
content => 'set some values',
}
Test file:
should contain_concat__fragment("foo")
The first time I ran it I missed the double underscore in the test. But there
was no way that I could see if my catalogue contained that fragment.
But by adding the logging stuff above I can now see all the parts of the
catalogue and how it's built and so debug the problem quicker. Shame there is
not a simple flag to turn this on for failing tests though.
john
On Thursday, 8 May 2014 09:42:39 UTC+1, Felix.Frank wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> can you share a sample manifest and spec test that expose this problem?
> I do not yet clearly understand what you're trying to do.
>
> Thanks,
> Felix
>
> On 05/07/2014 04:42 PM, choffee wrote:
> > Am I doing this wrong?
> >
> > I create a test that says "check for a file named foo", write some code
> > that should create the file. It fails for whatever reason and the test
> > just says no.
> >
> > How do I get a clue what I am doing wrong? It seems obvious to me that
> > having the catalog that was tested against for that test would mean I
> > could see my error rather than having to guess and test again.
> >
> > john
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-users/0b831b85-cc3d-4bf2-9670-09f0ee000880%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
