This seems a bit better:
define foo(
Enum["present", "absent"] $ensure = "present",
Optional[String] $ssh_authorized_file = undef,
Optional[String] $email = undef,
Optional[Integer] $uid = undef,
Optional[Integer] $gid = undef,
Variant[Boolean, String] $sudoer = false,
Boolean $setup_shell = false,
Boolean $setup_rbenv = false
) {
It's relatively easy to achieve with Tabular but I do agree on the advanced
structs, that's some crazy.
This is the best that I could do:
Struct[
{
mode => Enum[read, write, update],
path => Optional[String[1]],
NotUndef[owner] => Optional[String[1]]
}
]
I honestly have no idea if that will process correctly though, it's
massively tedious, and it would probably need a lot of commenting.
Trevor
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:36 AM, R.I.Pienaar <[email protected]> wrote:
> hello,
>
> I've done a few little things with the type system and really like what it
> achieves,
> was able to find a few bad data items in my hiera data and it saves on a
> lot of the
> super annoying validation function calls.
>
> The syntax though is pretty difficult to use, consider:
>
> define foo(
> Enum["present", "absent"] $ensure = "present",
> Optional[String] $ssh_authorized_file = undef,
> Optional[String] $email = undef,
> Optional[Integer] $uid = undef,
> Optional[Integer] $gid = undef,
> Variant[Boolean, String] $sudoer = false,
> Boolean $setup_shell = false,
> Boolean $setup_rbenv = false
> ) {
>
> So this has a few issues for me:
>
> Reading it, I just don't see the property names now, its become a real
> effort
> to read this.
>
> $ssh_authorized_file Optional[String] = undef,
>
> seems better for this use case to me and this is probably going to be the
> most
> often used use case.
>
> This gets much worse when we involve more complex type definitions, I
> can't imagine
> ever using a full on Struct definition here for example it would render it
> entirely
> unreadable and be impossible to maintain
>
> How would you ever fit this into a param declaration and maintain
> readability:
>
> Struct[{mode => Enum[read, write, update],
> path => Optional[String[1]],
> NotUndef[owner] => Optional[String[1]]}]
>
> This leads to my 2nd question, I couldn't find a way to make my own
> abstract
> types.
>
> Consider this hypothetical with made up syntax and all:
>
> site.pp:
> typedef MyData Struct[{mode => Enum[read, write, update],
> path => Optional[String[1]],
> NotUndef[owner] => Optional[String[1]]}]
>
> foo.pp:
> define foo(Mydata $data) {
>
> this would improve matters a whole lot. Does a typedef like feature
> exist? I couldn't
> find anything and tried a few things but failed
>
>
> ---
> R.I.Pienaar
>
> --
> 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/143546306.116227.1438266987939.JavaMail.zimbra%40devco.net
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
Trevor Vaughan
Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
(410) 541-6699
-- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information --
--
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/CANs%2BFoXyp8fCPdna4v_%2B1oMwWfjgRu9X4fT6ZHONnfz5ZfdM_g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
