[chef-dev] Re: Re: Re: local file copy resource?

[Jesse Campbell < >]

pull request submitted, comment added to ticket:
https://github.com/opscode/chef/pull/528
http://tickets.opscode.com/browse/CHEF-3676

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Bryan McLellan 
<
 >
 wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Jesse Campbell 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
>> Take a look here:
>> https://github.com/jcam/chef/commits/expanded_file_resource
>
> You could create pull request for this sort of patch, even if you're
> not done. That would allow people to comment in the PR against the
> specific parts of the code.
>
> It looks like #action_create no longer differentiates between creating
> a file that doesn't exist and updating the content of a file that does
> exist. This seems minor, but my gut tells me it is important for Chef
> to know the difference so we can be completely honest with the user
> about what we did or are going to do, for purposes like whyrun,
> auditing, reporting, etc.
>
> I don't think I like overloading the 'create' action to also be a
> 'copy' action, differing on if a source file exists or not, as we're
> not really creating a file.
>
> In #action_move, you remote the source file if it already matches the
> destination file. Conceptually this makes sense, but I'd be pretty
> surprised if I asked Chef to move a file and it told me that it
> deleted it instead.
>
> #copy reports "create a new cookbook_file 
> 
 "
>  but
> is used in both Chef::File#action_move and Chef::File#action_create
> (when copying a file). Again, we need to be accurate in what we're
> reporting.
>
> Personally the 'to' attribute made more sense to me than 'source.'
> When I think about what I'm copying or what I'm moving, I think what I
> am describing is the source, not the destination. But I can totally
> see how this is possibly personal preference. We see this in
> remote_file, cookbook_file and template today. The resource manages
> the destination and there is a source attribute. In link, where we
> already deal with two files on disk, we use 'to' since we realized
> this made more sense in CHEF-30 [1].
>
> Bryan
>
> [1] http://tickets.opscode.com/browse/CHEF-30