On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 1:05:16 AM UTC-5, Jakov Sosic wrote:
>
> Hi guys.
>
> I have an issue with scope changes, and I am wondering how to proceed.
>
>
> This is what I've got:
>
> define first (
> $somevar,
> ) {
> $name_array = split($title, '/')
> $developer = $name_array[0]
> $instance = $name_array[1]
>
> ::second { "${developer}_${instance}":
> template => 'my/custom/file.erb',
> }
>
> }
>
>
> define second (
> $template,
> ) {
> notify { "${developer}": }
> }
>
> first { 'j/test': somevar => 'test' }
>
>
> Accessing $developer was working before updating to puppet4, but after
> updating, it's not working any more. ERBs that are inside 'second' are
> depending on these variables being available to evaluate correctly.
What you describe should not have worked in Puppet 3, either. Class
inheritance is the only mechanism Puppet 3 scoping rules
<https://docs.puppetlabs.com/puppet/3/reference/lang_scope.html> provide
for variables declared in a local scope, such as is established by the body
of a class or a defined type, to be visible in any other scope. Defined
types are not subject to class inheritance. I'm reasonably confident that
the example you provided would create a Notify with an empty message in
Puppet 3, but since you mention templates, there was a bug in Puppet 3 in
which templates were able to access variables via dynamic scope (PUP-1220)
<https://tickets.puppetlabs.com/browse/PUP-1220>. That would explain the
template behavior you describe.
As far as I know or can tell, scoping rules are unchanged in Puppet 4. The
fix for PUP-1220 was initially rolled out in Puppet 3.5.0, but only in the
future parser. In Puppet 4, the erstwhile future parser is the only parser.
>
> I know a clean way to fix this would be to pass a variable $developer as
> a parameter to second defined type. BUT, I would like to try and avoid
> that because 'second' is a defined type provided by 3rd party module.
>
>
> Is there anything else I can do?
>
There is nothing you can do to cause a variable declared in one defined
type's local scope to be visible in a different defined type. You can pass
its *value* if you modify the second defined type, but you say you don't
want to do that. The only other avenues I see would involve modifying the
template, or using a different means to specify the target file's content,
or taking a step back and performing a broader redesign. I'm afraid I
can't suggest any details, however, because you've completely abstracted
away what you're actually trying to achieve.
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/7c0adc47-4dcc-4932-8494-5c6f39a6599e%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
