Merging dictionaries for "environment" parameter

[Steven Ringo]

Hi,

I am wanting to use the environment task parameter with dictionaries taken from two roles, e.g.

in roles/ruby/vars/main.yml:

ruby_environment:
    GEM_HOME: "/home/deploy/.gem/ruby/2.1.2"
    PATH:     "/home/deploy/.gem/ruby/2.1.2/bin:/opt/rubies/ruby-2.1.2/lib/ruby/gems/2.1.0/bin:/opt/rubies/ruby-2.1.2/bin"

in roles/rails/tasks/main.yml, I am wanting to do something like this:

- name: execute bundler
  command: bundle install --deployment
  environment:
    "{{ ruby_environment }}" merged with "RAILS_ENV: production"

Is this possible?

Thanks,

Steve

[Steven Ringo]

To add: would prefer not to use hash_behaviour = merge if possible.

[Michael DeHaan]

I think this might be proposing something like a jinja2 filter that merges one hash with another and returns it.

I'm not aware of this, but some other folks go deeper than me.

I'm not opposed to a filter plugin function being added that does this being added if that makes sense.

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Steven Ringo <goo...@stevenringo.com> wrote:

To add: would prefer not to use hash_behaviour = merge if possible.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ansible Project" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ansible-proje...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ansible...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ansible-project/f2468b4d-0e07-401e-8f95-fe40405d4fc7%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Steven Ringo]

I thought it might be possible to loop over each hash respectively and then create a new one with all of those.

[Michael DeHaan]

That in particular, I'd think no.

What I'd really like might look something like

environment: "{{ dict1 | update(dict2) }}"

Anybody done anything like that with stock Jinja2-voodoo magic?  If not, it's about a two liner in filter_plugins/core.py to expose the native hash update function.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ansible-project/c901cda8-bcf5-4e15-a576-73adeb965e1e%40googlegroups.com.

[Brian Coca]

dict1 + dict2 

I also have an update to 'set theory' that will allow you to do dict1|union(dict2)
​

[Michael DeHaan]

So that's a thing already with {{ dict1 + dict2 }}?  

Nice.

On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Brian Coca <bria...@gmail.com> wrote:

dict1 + dict2 

I also have an update to 'set theory' that will allow you to do dict1|union(dict2)
​

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ansible Project" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ansible-proje...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ansible...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ansible-project/CADn%2BHswCwhz%2B7c%2Bn8f2jdRm0-1%2BDjp6Rqrt%2BgYyXThTauGfMNg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Evgeny Goldin]

Not really. Python doesn't allow to merge two hashes using "{{ env1 + env2 }}". Here's what worked for me:

playbooks/filter_plugins/filters.py:

------------------------------------------------

def merge( hash_a, hash_b ):

  return dict(hash_a.items() + hash_b.items());

class FilterModule( object ):

  def filters( self ):

    return { 'merge' : merge }

------------------------------------------------

and then:

environment: "{{ env1 | merge( env2 ) }}"

[Michael DeHaan]

I think your filter plugin could be more easily written:

hash_a.update(hash_b)

perhaps?

If you send in a pull request, this seems reasonable to have as a core filter.

I'd probably call it 'update' if I'm correct on the above, which I think I am.  If not, perhaps "merge".

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ansible-project/5bbe2eda-80db-438a-b5a8-0eef1561df98%40googlegroups.com.

[Brian Coca]

I could swear I had patched the union filter to use update when dicts were passed in, let me try this again.

Brian Coca

[kesten broughton]

It would be nicer to have a filter for jinja2, but this works:

defaults.yml
d1:
  k1: 1

d2:
  k1: 2
  k2: 3

tasks/main.yml
- name: dbg
  debug: msg="{{d1}}     {{d2}}"

- set_fact:
     d1: "{% do d1.update(d2) %}{{d1}}"

- debug: msg="{{d1['k1']}}"

OUTPUT

TASK: [gnf_data | dbg] ********************************************************
<deploy-test-1> ESTABLISH CONNECTION FOR USER: ubuntu
ok: [deploy-test-1] => {
    "msg": "{'k1': 1}     {'k2': 3, 'k1': 2}"
}

TASK: [gnf_data | set_fact ] **************************************************
<deploy-test-1> ESTABLISH CONNECTION FOR USER: ubuntu
ok: [deploy-test-1] => {"ansible_facts": {"d1": {"k1": 2, "k2": 3}}}

TASK: [gnf_data | debug msg="{{d1['k1']}}"] ***********************************
<deploy-test-1> ESTABLISH CONNECTION FOR USER: ubuntu
ok: [deploy-test-1] => {
    "msg": "2"

[T.N. T.]

On Saturday, October 25, 2014 at 2:09:22 AM UTC+2, Michael DeHaan wrote:

I think your filter plugin could be more easily written:

hash_a.update(hash_b)

perhaps?

If you send in a pull request, this seems reasonable to have as a core filter.

I'd probably call it 'update' if I'm correct on the above, which I think I am.  If not, perhaps "merge".

I had exactly the same idea. Did anybody do a PR for this? I don't see it in 1.9 nor in devel.

If nobody else has time for it I could do it. I think this is really a gap. Anyway this way is definitely more what they call pythonic than tweaking the union filter. 

My code  is simply:

def update(dic, odic):
    dic.update(odic)
    return dic


class FilterModule(object):

    def filters(self):
        return {

            'update': update,
            'update_dict': update,
            'merge_dict': update
        }

[Brian Coca]

there is a hash_merge PR pending but it won't make it into 1.9.




--
Brian Coca

[T.N. T.]

On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 5:01:33 PM UTC+1, Brian Coca wrote:

there is a hash_merge PR pending but it won't make it into 1.9.

Looks nice. And nice to know. Thank you!

[ke...@collectivehealth.com]

Looks like update doesn't do a recursive hash merge. This might be the solution, https://www.xormedia.com/recursively-merge-dictionaries-in-python/

Is the best practice be to add this as a jinja filter?

This message may contain confidential, proprietary, or protected information.  If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy, or distribute this message. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message.

[vadyochik]

For version 2.0+ check this please:

http://docs.ansible.com/ansible/playbooks_filters.html#combining-hashes-dictionaries

"combine" filter might be what someone is searching for.

пятница, 21 августа 2015 г., 22:46:12 UTC+3 пользователь ke...@collectivehealth.com написал: