On 18/07/11 09:18, Tim Sharpe wrote:
We have a generic create_resource matcher than can be used however for a
nicer experience I also want to create specific matchers for the built
in types.
it { should create_resource('package',
'mysql-server').with_param('ensure', 'present') }
vs
it {
We have a generic create_resource matcher than can be used however for a nicer
experience I also want to create specific matchers for the built in types.
it { should create_resource('package', 'mysql-server').with_param('ensure',
'present') }
vs
it { should
On 18.07.2011 09:18, Tim Sharpe wrote:
We have a generic create_resource matcher than can be used however for a
nicer experience I also want to create specific matchers for the built
in types.
it { should create_resource('package',
'mysql-server').with_param('ensure', 'present') }
vs
it {
On Jul 18, 2011, at 12:18 AM, Tim Sharpe wrote:
We have a generic create_resource matcher than can be used however for a
nicer experience I also want to create specific matchers for the built in
types.
it { should create_resource('package', 'mysql-server').with_param('ensure',
Yep, that's a good idea!
On Monday, 18 July 2011 at 6:13 PM, David Schmitt wrote:
On 18.07.2011 09:18, Tim Sharpe wrote:
We have a generic create_resource matcher than can be used however for a
nicer experience I also want to create specific matchers for the built
in types.
it {
Hi,
I have been thinking about an approach similar to this lately, I would love
to see some sensible rspec APIs for testing Puppet code. I am happy to help
you get this together (since I would like to see some standards in place
ASAP)
I would have a look at 2 things:
you can easily tell puppet
Hi Dan,
Yeah, I'm focusing mainly on getting a clean RSpec API at the moment. What it
looks like currently is
require 'rspec-puppet'
describe 'sysctl', :type = :define do
let(:module_path) { '/path/to/my/modules' }
let(:name) { 'baz' }
let(:params) { { :value = 'foo' } }
it { should
Hi,
I just stumbled upon this thread and was wondering whether you have had
a look at cucumber-puppet. It seems to be doing what you want, albeit
with cucumber and not rspec.
Cheers,
Nikolay
--
It's all part of my Can't-Do approach to life. Wally
--
You received this message because you are
On Jul 17, 2011, at 4:53 PM, Tim Sharpe wrote:
Hi Dan,
Yeah, I'm focusing mainly on getting a clean RSpec API at the moment. What
it looks like currently is
require 'rspec-puppet'
describe 'sysctl', :type = :define do
let(:module_path) { '/path/to/my/modules' }
Nikolay Sturm wrote:
Hi,
I just stumbled upon this thread and was wondering whether you have had
a look at cucumber-puppet. It seems to be doing what you want, albeit
with cucumber and not rspec.
I think it might have something to do with Tim's abiding hatred of
Cucumber. :)
Regards
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Luke Kanies l...@puppetlabs.com wrote:
On Jul 17, 2011, at 4:53 PM, Tim Sharpe wrote:
Hi Dan,
Yeah, I'm focusing mainly on getting a clean RSpec API at the moment. What
it looks like currently is
require 'rspec-puppet'
describe 'sysctl', :type
On Jul 15, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Tim Sharpe wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking at setting up some tests for the defined types in my manifests
(probably using rspec) to test that node foo with facts bar applying
define baz with params gronk creates a catalogue with the following
resources...
Hi Luke,
Thanks, but this is not quite what I'm after. Basically I want to test that a
catalogue with just the baz resource generates certain resources, so I would
like a way to generate the equivalent of node 'foo' { bar { 'name': test =
'value' } } by manipulating classes like Puppet::Node
13 matches
Mail list logo
