Custom fact scoping problem

[Greg Etling]

OK, I think this is probably something that is entirely my fault, but I cannot access a facter fact that I need. It evaluates only on certain clients, and is dependent upon the creation and value of another fact. Client and server are puppet 2.6.6 and facter 1.5.9.

Custom fact defined in common module:

/etc/puppetdev/modules/common/lib/facter/openldap.rb

Facter.add("is_ldap_server") do

  setcode do

    if  FileTest.exists?("/usr/sbin/slapd")

      Facter.add("ldap_rid") do

        setcode do

          case Facter::network_eth0

          when "192.168.96.0"

            Facter::ipaddress[/[0-9]+$/].chomp

          when "192.168.97.0"

            ( 500 + Facter::ipaddress_eth0[/[0-9]+$/].chomp.to_i )

          end

end

      end

      %x{echo yes}.chomp

    else

      %x{echo no}.chomp

    end

  end

end

This fact does evaluate on the client in question:

ldap_rid => 529

However, whatever way I use to try to find it in my template fails...can someone please help?

Attempted syntaxes:

<%= @ldap_rid %>

<% @ldap_rid %>

<%= ldap_rid %>

<% ldap_rid %>

<%= scope.lookupvar("ldap_rid") %>

<%= scope.lookupvar("::ldap_rid") %>

...probably others as well. I'm probably just scoping it wrong, but every time it comes up as blank or 'undef'.

Thanks.

[Greg Etling]

Well, whatever problem I'm seeing is due to the nested Facter.add statements...when I pulled the ldap_rid one out and ran it separately, it worked.

[Greg Etling]

I have it working, but I'm curious if this might be a bug with nested Facter.add statements?

I simply un-nested them and used a 'confine' statement to make things work. New facts posted below:

Facter.add("is_ldap_server") do

  setcode do

    if  FileTest.exists?("/usr/sbin/slapd")

      %x{echo yes}.chomp

    else

      %x{echo no}.chomp

    end

  end

end

Facter.add("ldap_rid") do

  confine :is_ldap_server => :yes

[Ken Barber]

IMHO I don't think I want nested facts to work :-). The evaluation
order alone is trouble some ... ie. the inner fact wouldn't get added
until the enclosed fact is evaluated ... doesn't sound like something
you would want in ordinary circumstances :-). Remember sometimes fact
information is gather on a per-fact basis and doing nesting would
break this for your inner fact.

I think using the confine is fine :-).

ken.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Puppet Users" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/puppet-users/-/ob5dE8e2afMJ.
> To post to this group, send email to puppet...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> puppet-users...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
>

--
"Join us for PuppetConf, September 22nd and 23rd in Portland, OR:
http://bit.ly/puppetconfsig"