-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 54
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
(PE-36789) R10k Known hosts upgrade path #382
Conversation
Adding optional parameter for r10k known hosts Alerting user to set known hosts if they are upgrading to or past 2023.3
@ragingra should this still be a draft? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM. I would like to see some tests around the r10k upgrade!!!
@jpartlow if you are happy with it, please merge |
Noticed that the get_pe_conf/update_pe_conf functions were expecting a target but $primary_target is actually an array. So I went ahead added specs covering the basic cases for upgrade and r10k_known_hosts. They aren't the best specs due to difficulties testing write_file, upload_file and out_message, but they at least validate that the plan completes with r10k_known_hosts set.
Added upgrade specs because I found a breaking issue while fiddling with them. Would probably be good to add a github workflow that tests install/upgrade with r10k settings, validates puppet-code deploy, but that was more than I had time for. I did verify a manual standard upgrade from 2021.7.4 to 2023.3.0 with code manager setup still had working code deployment with r10k_known_hosts set. |
Adding optional parameter for r10k known hosts
Alerting user to set known hosts if they are upgrading to or past 2023.3
Summary
Provide a detailed description of all the changes present in this pull request.
Additional Context
Add any additional context about the problem here.
Related Issues (if any)
Mention any related issues or pull requests.
Checklist
Changes include test coverage?
Have you updated the documentation?