Re: [Puppet-dev] RFC - A specification for module schemas

[Trevor Vaughan]

Hi Corey,

I needed to validate my data against a known set of Hiera and/or ENC data
for compliance validation and did it with a function:
https://github.com/trevor-vaughan/pupmod-compliance.

I would *love* to see something like this hit the core language, but there
are quite a few cases where I have items that can be a Boolean, Number, or
String (I'm still not loving needing to convert Numbers to Strings
everywhere for consistency) so it gets difficult to use the Puppet 4
inbuilt validators.

The linked function certainly doesn't meet everyone's use case, but it
fulfills my needs for the moment.

Thanks

Trevor

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Corey Osman  wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 11:31:36 PM UTC-8, R.I. Pienaar wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> > From: "Corey Osman" 
>> > To: "puppet-dev" 
>> > Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 7:47:03 PM
>> > Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] RFC - A specification for module schemas
>>
>> > On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 10:47:48 PM UTC-8, R.I. Pienaar wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> - Original Message -
>> >> > From: "Corey Osman" 
>> >> > To: "puppet-dev" 
>> >> > Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 5:45:05 AM
>> >> > Subject: [Puppet-dev] RFC - A specification for module schemas
>> >>
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > I wanted to bring up a conversation in hopes that we as a community
>> can
>> >> create a
>> >> > specification for something I am calling module schemas.  Before I
>> get
>> >> into
>> >> > that I want to provide a little background info.
>> >> >
>> >> > This all started a few years ago when hiera first came out. Data
>> >> seperation in
>> >> > the form of parameters and auto hiera lookups quickly became the
>> norm
>> >> and
>> >> > reusable modules exploded into what the forge is today .  Because of
>> the
>> >> > popularity of hiera, data validation is now a major problem though.
>> >>  Without
>> >> > good data, excellent modules become useless.
>> >> >
>> >> > Puppet 4 and stdlib brought many new functions and ways to validate
>> >> incoming
>> >> > data, and I consider puppet 4 to now be a loosely typed language
>> now.
>> >> Hell,
>> >> > there was even this a long time ago:
>> >> > https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppetlabs-kwalify
>> >> >   But puppet only
>> >> does so
>> >> > much, and while having validation reside in code might make
>> >> troubleshooting a
>> >> > snap, there is still a delay in the feedback loop when the code is
>> >> tightly
>> >> > coupled with an external “database” of data.  Data that is inserted
>> by
>> >> non
>> >> > puppet developers who don’t know YAML or data structures.
>> >> >
>> >> > So with that said I want to introduce something new to puppet module
>> >> > development, called module schemas.  A module schema is a
>> specification
>> >> that
>> >> > details the inner workings of a module.   For right now this means a
>> >> detailed
>> >> > specification of all the parameters for classes and definitions used
>> >> inside a
>> >> > module who’s goal is to make it impossible to insert a bad data
>> >> structure.  But
>> >> > ideally, we can specify so much more (functions, types, providers,
>> >> templates)
>> >> > even hiera calls in weird places like templates and functions, which
>> are
>> >> > usually things that do not get documented and are hard to reference
>> and
>> >> usually
>> >> > requires looking at source code.
>> >> >
>> >> > What does such a schema look like?
>> >> >
>> >> > Here is a example schema for the apache module which contains 446
>> >> parameters!.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://github.com/logicminds/puppet_module_schemas/blob/master/apache_schema.yaml
>> >>
>> >> This in general is something I've wanted for a long time, and I think
>> >> we're almost
>> >> getting for free now in Puppet 4
>> >>
>> >> In Puppet 4 you can do:
>> >>
>> >>class x(String $y) { }
>> >>
>> >> or
>> >>
>> >>class x(String $y[1,10]) { }
>> >>
>> >> or
>> >>
>> >>class x(Pattern[/\A[a-z].*/]) { }
>> >>
>> >> or
>> >>class x(Enum["stopped", "running"] $y) { }
>> >>
>> >> and many more including very complex matchers.  This is a lot more
>> >> featureful AND
>> >> maps 1:1 to the capabilities puppet has natively.
>> >>
>> >
>> > This is one drawback of using an external schema parser, puppet has way
>> > more useful types to check against. Of course Puppet 3 only has the
>> basics
>> > (bool, string, array, hash).   I have thought about forking the kwalify
>> > parser and making more data types so it would be more aware of some
>> puppet
>> > data types  (absolute path, cert_type, ...).  I could go down that
>> route,
>> > but I would probably be the only maintainer.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I think there are ways now to introspect the classes and extract this
>> >> metadata
>> >> automagically, 

Re: [Puppet-dev] RFC - A specification for module schemas

[Eli Young]

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Trevor Vaughan 
wrote:

> I would *love* to see something like this hit the core language, but there
> are quite a few cases where I have items that can be a Boolean, Number, or
> String (I'm still not loving needing to convert Numbers to Strings
> everywhere for consistency) so it gets difficult to use the Puppet 4
> inbuilt validators.
>

That's where Variants come in:
https://docs.puppetlabs.com/puppet/4.2/reference/lang_data_abstract.html#variant

Variant[Boolean, Number, String] means "must be a Boolean, a Number, or a
String", which sounds like exactly what you want.

-- 
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/CAE%2BtgeMbfHhRC76XJ%2BKz0czJsiazgfadQ%2BJ0oU3%3Di9sKtu_fGw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Puppet-dev] RFC - A specification for module schemas

[Rob Nelson]

Those three types will be the majority of what you use, sure, but Optional
and Enum are awesome. Pattern seems potent but may be difficult to use.
Check out how this module uses the type system:
https://github.com/jlambert121/jlambert121-puppet/blob/master/manifests/init.pp

On Monday, February 1, 2016, Trevor Vaughan  wrote:

> I'll give it a shot again (unfortunately, I have legacy 3.X users so
> updating to use 4.X features will take some time).
>
> Honestly, I still haven't found a compelling reason for anything besides
> Booleans, Undef, and Strings. Even the stdlib code converts everything to a
> string due to the issues with dealing with Strings and Numbers together.
>
> Are there any compelling cases that I'm missing out there?
>
> Happy to fork this to a different thread.
>
> Trevor
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Eli Young  > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Trevor Vaughan > > wrote:
>>
>>> I would *love* to see something like this hit the core language, but
>>> there are quite a few cases where I have items that can be a Boolean,
>>> Number, or String (I'm still not loving needing to convert Numbers to
>>> Strings everywhere for consistency) so it gets difficult to use the Puppet
>>> 4 inbuilt validators.
>>>
>>
>> That's where Variants come in:
>> https://docs.puppetlabs.com/puppet/4.2/reference/lang_data_abstract.html#variant
>>
>> Variant[Boolean, Number, String] means "must be a Boolean, a Number, or a
>> String", which sounds like exactly what you want.
>>
>> --
>> 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/CAE%2BtgeMbfHhRC76XJ%2BKz0czJsiazgfadQ%2BJ0oU3%3Di9sKtu_fGw%40mail.gmail.com
>> 
>> .
>>
>> 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 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/CANs%2BFoWKSv2P-yOMD1kzfPYima_KVwzbyTRt6ToaejxqyLebYA%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>


-- 

Rob Nelson
rnels...@gmail.com

-- 
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/CAC76iT8n_u8FEhuvjnXFNNtaFPiY5EUTUQZkGUp%2BFZAr42kWxQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Puppet-dev] RFC - A specification for module schemas

[Trevor Vaughan]

I'll give it a shot again (unfortunately, I have legacy 3.X users so
updating to use 4.X features will take some time).

Honestly, I still haven't found a compelling reason for anything besides
Booleans, Undef, and Strings. Even the stdlib code converts everything to a
string due to the issues with dealing with Strings and Numbers together.

Are there any compelling cases that I'm missing out there?

Happy to fork this to a different thread.

Trevor

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Eli Young  wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Trevor Vaughan 
> wrote:
>
>> I would *love* to see something like this hit the core language, but
>> there are quite a few cases where I have items that can be a Boolean,
>> Number, or String (I'm still not loving needing to convert Numbers to
>> Strings everywhere for consistency) so it gets difficult to use the Puppet
>> 4 inbuilt validators.
>>
>
> That's where Variants come in:
> https://docs.puppetlabs.com/puppet/4.2/reference/lang_data_abstract.html#variant
>
> Variant[Boolean, Number, String] means "must be a Boolean, a Number, or a
> String", which sounds like exactly what you want.
>
> --
> 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/CAE%2BtgeMbfHhRC76XJ%2BKz0czJsiazgfadQ%2BJ0oU3%3Di9sKtu_fGw%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
> 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 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/CANs%2BFoWKSv2P-yOMD1kzfPYima_KVwzbyTRt6ToaejxqyLebYA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Puppet-dev] RFC - A specification for module schemas

[John Bollinger]

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 2:37:53 PM UTC-6, Corey Osman wrote:
 

> I think we have strayed off topic here. Being able to validate hiera 
> should be something that can easily be done by anyone no matter which 
> version of puppet they use.
>


I agree that being able to validate Hiera data would be useful for 
everyone, no matter what version of Puppet they rely upon.  I have no beef 
at all with anyone who wants to write tools that have broader version 
support, as opposed to narrower.  I am quite open to discussing what such 
tools might look like, how they might work, and what their inputs and 
outputs might be.

 

>   The core problem is bad data going into hiera and then into puppet.  The 
> consensus is that we all know this is problem.   While my primary goal was 
> to validate hiera, I think there are other use cases for having an 
> intermediate serialization format of the module's interfaces stored in a 
> file or retrieved dynamically with a puppet face.  
>
>

I agree that bad data is a problem, and a widely recognized one.  Tools and 
procedures for validating Hiera data are an excellent idea, and I am open 
to the possibility that a module schema such as you describe might have 
useful broader applications.  Allowing for such schemata to be obtained 
dynamically seems the forward-looking approach, but it does not have to be 
exclusive of static schemata.

Pragmatically, targeting static schemata first may be the best way to get 
such an effort off the ground. If we sacrifice "good" on the altar of 
"best" then we stand a good chance of being eternally stuck at "meh".

 

> To summarize some of the points discussed:
>
> Building a schema:
>   -  We need a higher level API for gathering module types, parameters, 
> and default values given a module, file, class or parameter
>  - Puppet should provide a way to output this information in a 
> serialized format and pure ruby objects
> - format should be pluggable with customizable formats (JSON, 
> YAML, Module Schema, .hiera data schema, ..)
> - should leverage puppet's built in datatypes  
> - build a hiera data schema based on all the modules in puppet's 
> modules path specific for each puppet environment
>
>

I agree that it would be useful for there to be a mechanism for gathering 
such information from Puppet manifests.  To whatever extent that needs to 
be built in to Puppet itself, it seems unlikely that such a feature would 
appear in any version of Puppet older than the development tip.

As far as pluggable formats go, if you mean *output* formats then I'm 
unconvinced.  Or perhaps I would just componentize differently.  It seems 
to me that a single, flexible form that can serve as a *lingua franca* 
should be the immediate target, and I guess I would choose a Ruby object 
form for that.  If the result is wanted in one or more external formats 
then defining and emitting the needed outputs is a separate, problem, and 
likely a much simpler one.

As far as *input* formats go, I already opined that the best starting point 
would probably be a static, external schema format, at least for schemata 
that are not prepared programmatically in object format from the 
beginning.  There is perhaps room to support more input formats, but I'm 
not immediately seeing why such support would be more than a tiny win.

 

> Validating data
>   -  Given a hiera data schema, hiera should be able to validate its data, 
> implemented by each backend provider
>   - hiera data schemas are unique to every user
>
>

It's unclear to me how building validation directly into Hiera would gain 
anything if the idea is to rely on schemata gleaned dynamically from 
manifests in the first place.  I don't see how Hiera could be any more 
effective than the catalog builder at detecting bad data at runtime if the 
two are relying on the same (meta)data.  If it isn't any better then 
putting validation into Hiera would just move the point at which certain 
data errors are detected, at the cost of additional processing overhead.

On the other hand, I do think that validating on top of hiera is better 
than validating the underlying data directly.  Puppet sees the data only 
through the lens of Hiera, and if one is validating for Puppet then one 
wants to rely on the same view of the data that Puppet has.  Moreover, 
validating on top of Hiera is independent of any particular Hiera back 
end.  It may be that endowing Hiera with one or two new capabilities would 
facilitate offline data validation.  For example, one might want to request 
a full dump of all data, so as to look for extraneous / misspelled keys.

 

> Help not force people to use puppet 4
>   -  Given a module schema, retrofit puppet 3 code with puppet 4 data 
> types into the module's source code
>  - swagger like functionality, with the exception that its updating 
> code
>  - This helps people move from puppet 3 to puppet 4 
>   - Folks who cannot move to 

[Puppet-dev] travis issue affecting many repos using ruby 1.9.3

[Corey Osman]

FYI

There is an issue with travis and bundler on ruby version 1.9.3.  So if your 
build matrix uses this ruby you may be seeing this error: NoMethodError: 
undefined method `spec' for nil:NilClass

To fix you just need to update bundler like so in your travis file.


before_install:
  # https://github.com/bundler/bundler/issues/3558
  gem update bundler




Corey

-- 
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/7B821AF7-553B-4C6E-BB5D-4907CE171B77%40nwops.io.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Puppet-dev] travis issue affecting many repos using ruby 1.9.3

[Corey Osman]

It is an older issue but from 2015 but I think travis just made it come to 
light.  Setting sudo to false may also fix the issue which maybe why your 
project works.

I have run into with the puppetlabs_spec_helper and one of my own repos.  

https://travis-ci.org/puppetlabs/puppetlabs_spec_helper/builds/105594903
https://travis-ci.org/logicminds/bmclib/jobs/105521878

Corey

On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 10:26:06 AM UTC-8, Rob Nelson wrote:
>
> Do you know what's triggering it? That doesn't seem like a new issue, and 
> I see some 1.9.3 builds working without that, such as 
> https://travis-ci.org/voxpupuli/puppet-confluence/builds/106194437
>
>
> Rob Nelson
> rnel...@gmail.com 
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Corey Osman  > wrote:
>
>> FYI
>>
>> There is an issue with travis and bundler on ruby version 1.9.3.  So if 
>> your build matrix uses this ruby you may be seeing this error: 
>> NoMethodError: 
>> undefined method `spec' for nil:NilClass
>>
>> To fix you just need to update bundler like so in your travis file.
>>
>>
>> before_install:
>>   # https://github.com/bundler/bundler/issues/3558
>>   gem update bundler
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Corey
>>
>> -- 
>> 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+...@googlegroups.com .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-dev/7B821AF7-553B-4C6E-BB5D-4907CE171B77%40nwops.io
>>  
>> 
>> .
>> 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/fcd6ba9c-b2b9-4730-8c3a-4287d82e8c54%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Puppet-dev] Re: RFC - A specification for module schemas

[Henrik Lindberg]

There were many great replies to this, I am following up on this
and the comments made elsewhere in one go here.

On 2016-30-01 5:45, Corey Osman wrote:

I wanted to bring up a conversation in hopes that we as a community can
create a specification for something I am calling module schemas.
  Before I get into that I want to provide a little background info.

This all started a few years ago when hiera first came out. Data
seperation in the form of parameters and auto hiera lookups quickly
became the norm and reusable modules exploded into what the forge is
today .  Because of the popularity of hiera, data validation is now a
major problem though.  Without good data, excellent modules become useless.

Puppet 4 and stdlib brought many new functions and ways to validate
incoming data, and I consider puppet 4 to now be a loosely typed
language now.   Hell, there was even this a long time ago:
https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppetlabs-kwalify  But puppet only does
so much, and while having validation reside in code might make
troubleshooting a snap, there is still a delay in the feedback loop when
the code is tightly coupled with an external “database” of data.  Data
that is inserted by non puppet developers who don’t know YAML or data
structures.

So with that said I want to introduce something new to puppet module
development, called module schemas.  A module schema is a specification
that details the inner workings of a module.   For right now this means
a detailed specification of all the parameters for classes and
definitions used inside a module who’s goal is to make it impossible to
insert a bad data structure.  But ideally, we can specify so much more
(functions, types, providers, templates) even hiera calls in weird
places like templates and functions, which are usually things that do
not get documented and are hard to reference and usually requires
looking at source code.

What does such a schema look like?

Here is a example schema for the apache module which contains 446
parameters!.
https://github.com/logicminds/puppet_module_schemas/blob/master/apache_schema.yaml

The most immediate use case for such a schema is hiera validation as I
have outlined here:
http://logicminds.github.io/blog/2016/01/16/testing-hiera-data.  Which
works AWESOME!.  We are validating hiera data and not YAML and doing it
under 500 ms for every commit on every single file.

As a community we need a solution for validating hiera data.  Its my
belief that schemas are the way to go.   After all hiera data is now in
modules with no way to easily validate.

Other use cases that come to mind:

   - generating documentation (Many modules on the forge usually contain
a static map of parameters used inside the module).   If a schema was
present, we could just generate that same map automatically.
   - useful for other 3rd party tools like puppet strings
   Parameter specification lookup
   - Imagine a  face that shows internal puppet module specifications.
  I am not talking about puppet-strings, this would detail the
parameters given a class, or an example parameter value given a
parameter name.
 Scenario:
   - puppet module puppetlabs/apache   (outputs all the parameters,
classes for that module) in a specified format (json or yaml)
   - puppet module puppetlabs-apache::class_name (outputs all the
parameters for the class in a specified format (json or yaml)
   - puppet module puppetlabs-apache::class_name::param1  (outputs
an example value for that parameter, as well as the default value) in a
specified format (json or yaml)

Foreman and Puppet Console need this level of detail as well.
  Currently, both of these solutions spend quite a bit of time parsing
code to show parameters for UI display.   It would be much easier if a
schema was available that detailed this level of data..  Think of the
speed improvements that could be had if this information was “cached” in
a file.   These solutions currently load or intelligently scan all the
puppet code for every puppet environment to get the parameters and
defaults.

Here is how we can create a schema
http://logicminds.github.io/blog/2016/01/15/how-to-build-a-module-schema/
   (which I even automated with retrospect-puppet
(https://github.com/nwops/puppet-retrospec.git)

However,  we all need to agree on something before schemas can ever be a
“thing”.  We need a schema for module schemas.  This is important
because as soon as 3rd party tools or scripts start to use schemas and
later we decide the schema needs changing, everything breaks.  Tools
need a specification to work from.

So with this in mind and an example schema here:
https://github.com/logicminds/puppet_module_schemas/blob/master/apache_schema.yaml.
  How can this be improved?  What should we add?

About the only change I was pondering was adding another object for the
types themselves.
https://github.com/logicminds/puppet_module_schemas/blob/master/specification_with_types.yaml

What are your thoughts?  

[Puppet-dev] Re: Puppet 4: defined resource types and epp template

[Henrik Lindberg]

On 2016-01-02 24:23, Martin Alfke wrote:

Hi,

I recently had an issue with epp template within a defined resource type.
Let’s assume the following code snippets:

# modules/test/manifests/init.pp
class test {
   ::test::files { 'test':
 param1 => 'value',
   }
}

# modules/test/manifests/files.pp
define test::files (
   $param1 = '',
){
   file { "/tmp/${title}":
 ensure  => file,
 content => epp('test/files.epp'),
   }
}

# modules/test/templates/files.epp
<%= $param1 %>

The parameter Param1 will not get the data provided within define declaration.

Is this desired behaviour?
Should I open a bug?
Is this a known bug?

When passing the param1 data via hash to epp function, data will get added to 
the template.


That is exactly what you should do. An external (file based epp) when 
called, does not get to see variables in the scope from which it was 
called/used. This design is deliberate. Think of the template as a 
function you are calling, and you have to give it its arguments.


Contrast this with the inline_epp, which you can think of as a 
lambda/code-block. Here the code block gets to see the variables in 
scope, since it is itself in that scope (part of the same piece of code).


This design makes the code more maintainable and templates more 
reusable. It is also easier to test the templates (there is a command 
line utility (puppet epp IIRC) that allows you to feed values into a 
templates and render the result).


Hope that helps
- henrik



Best,
Martin




--

Visit my Blog "Puppet on the Edge"
http://puppet-on-the-edge.blogspot.se/

--
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/n8o7b5%24k5j%241%40ger.gmane.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Puppet-dev] travis issue affecting many repos using ruby 1.9.3

[Rob Nelson]

Do you know what's triggering it? That doesn't seem like a new issue, and I
see some 1.9.3 builds working without that, such as
https://travis-ci.org/voxpupuli/puppet-confluence/builds/106194437


Rob Nelson
rnels...@gmail.com

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Corey Osman  wrote:

> FYI
>
> There is an issue with travis and bundler on ruby version 1.9.3.  So if
> your build matrix uses this ruby you may be seeing this error: NoMethodError:
> undefined method `spec' for nil:NilClass
>
> To fix you just need to update bundler like so in your travis file.
>
>
> before_install:
>   # https://github.com/bundler/bundler/issues/3558
>   gem update bundler
>
>
>
>
> Corey
>
> --
> 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/7B821AF7-553B-4C6E-BB5D-4907CE171B77%40nwops.io
> 
> .
> 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/CAC76iT8xjyPhPP0XTW%3DFyRssDX%2BL9K6iYAYwZGm6XAguSHZLug%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.