Behavior of Environments -- Bug?
Paul Lathrop
with environments. I made a change to the way our puppet.conf file is
generated and distributed, which led to an environment which had been
defined on a puppetmaster being no longer defined in puppet.conf.
We'll call this the "core" environement. When clients checked in and
asked for the "core" environment, the puppetmaster didn't know about
it. I would have expected an error at this point. However, what
happened instead was the puppetmaster passed out the configs for the
"production" environment without complaint.
IMHO this is a bug, but I can see how it might be by design. Any
comments? Should I file it?
--Paul
Tony G.
How does your config file look like in the main section?
There is a default one if no environment is defined, e.g.
environments = production,testing,development
manifest = /opt/puppet/production/site.pp <-- These are the
modulepath = /opt/puppet/production/modules <-- default locations
[production]
manifest = /opt/puppet/production/site.pp
modulepath = /opt/puppet/production/modules
[testing]
manifest = /opt/puppet/testing/site.pp
modulepath = /opt/puppet/testing/modules
[development]
manifest = /opt/puppet/development/site.pp
modulepath = /opt/puppet/development/modules
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group.
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.
--
Tony
Paul Lathrop
Sure, I understand that, but if the client is asking for a specific
environment that the puppetmaster doesn't know about, I feel like that
warrants a warning at minimum, probably an error and a refusal to
compile. Would be interested if anyone has a counter-argument.
--Paul
Tony G.
Does not sounds bad to me, if somebody uses tons of environments it will reduce errors or at least will be easier to find them.
Scott Smith
> IMHO this is a bug, but I can see how it might be by design. Any
> comments? Should I file it?
>
> --Paul
>
Don't know if it's a bug but... Yeah it defaults to "production" - you have to create an empty
manifest for "production" in order to prevent Very Scary Things from occuring if you happen to also
have a "production" Puppet env.
-scott
Paul Lathrop
I know it defaults to production if a environment is not specified.
However, that's not the case here. The client *is* specifying an
environment, the server doesn't know about that environment. I think
this is different than what you are describing - if the client does
not specify an environment, it is totally sane/correct to pass out the
"production" manifests. However, if the client specifies an
environment the server doesn't know about, isn't it at least worth
warning about?
--Paul
Julian Simpson
Julian Simpson
Software Build and Deployment
http://www.build-doctor.com
http://twitter.com/builddoctor
Nigel Kersten
> I'd expect it to fail in such a way that the puppet run could not happen.
> Anything else could have worse consequences.
++
--
nigel
James Turnbull
Hash: SHA1
On 23/03/10 7:26 AM, Paul Lathrop wrote:
> Scott,
>
> I know it defaults to production if a environment is not specified.
> However, that's not the case here. The client *is* specifying an
> environment, the server doesn't know about that environment. I think
> this is different than what you are describing - if the client does
> not specify an environment, it is totally sane/correct to pass out the
> "production" manifests. However, if the client specifies an
> environment the server doesn't know about, isn't it at least worth
> warning about?
+1. Should fail with an appropriate warning. Smells like a bug to me.
Regards
James Turnbull
- --
Author of:
* Pro Linux System Administration (http://tinyurl.com/linuxadmin)
* Pulling Strings with Puppet (http://tinyurl.com/pupbook)
* Pro Nagios 2.0 (http://tinyurl.com/pronagios)
* Hardening Linux (http://tinyurl.com/hardeninglinux)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEVAwUBS6fqQSFa/lDkFHAyAQJAGwf8D9RJMkCESZrkS9sBUKXaER+Sj0DzhK7R
LUzUc1LL2boKjzAaCHJ86fM2kwSoFBAr/rD5hbCtMAhfP5o0tRo79X+evOLK+kPK
jpk3aHL0sPpSGfUq9l5KaoumlNAZixYZZ9e38BkuLiYlwNfavVwxmN1os7Uhst96
UuI2GhXHwlDD+Nhu5b9QAomd2RArO91ujm1IC2cV3/kkfJ9UKvY121+Gt7QBSRas
tmlMofj6g7kgs8HCD76X9BQAm0Ee97H72Klz1jUckhtYnpmgpnZDlnlms9ulM/Ea
IBiUp2B3cRfgapOziEMSG6+z+ZKv9HFbGaa8s1SsxUMKlb7J7/1xUg==
=bMU4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Scott Smith
> Scott,
>
> I know it defaults to production if a environment is not specified.
> However, that's not the case here. The client *is* specifying an
> environment, the server doesn't know about that environment. I think
> this is different than what you are describing - if the client does
> not specify an environment, it is totally sane/correct to pass out the
> "production" manifests. However, if the client specifies an
> environment the server doesn't know about, isn't it at least worth
> warning about?
Yeah, sorry--I was not clear in my agreement that it should probably behave differently. I did
understand your problem and have observed it myself. The work around is to not use "production" and
make it a stubbed environment with no real manifest.
But yeah, +1 on wishing to see different behavior.
-scott
Nigel Kersten
I have a 'noop' environment I default to, which logs to the server
that someone has hit it, and I'm planning to monitor counts of that
when I get around to it...
>
> But yeah, +1 on wishing to see different behavior.
>
> -scott
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Puppet Users" group.
> 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.
>
>
--
nigel