[chef-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ::File notation

[Noah Kantrowitz < >]

Now that you mention it, yeah, I think we used to use Chef::Resource as the 
scope for recipe code but now it runs in its own thang so you might well have 
a point :)

--Noah

On Apr 16, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Andrea Campi wrote:

> Right, that's what I was thinking too. So in theory the recipe linked by 
> the OP shouldn't fail.
> But I've seen this pattern used again and again, to the point where I use 
> it without even thinking.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Scott Sanders 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
> I believe this affects resources and providers, not recipes.
> 
> % grep -r 'class File ' *
> chef/provider/file.rb:    class File < Chef::Provider
> chef/resource/file.rb:    class File < Chef::Resource
> 
> 
> Scott Sanders  |  Tech Operations  |  803.767.0060  |  @scott_sanders
> taximagic : http://taximagic.com  ;|  sedanmagic : http://sedanmagic.com
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Andrea Campi 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
> BTW, I was writing my thoughts on this and fired up chef-shell to try it.
> And guess what, this works like a charm in recipe_mode without any ::
> 
> chef:recipe > file "test" do
> chef:recipe >     not_if { File.exists?("test") }
> chef:recipe ?>  end
> 
> Are we even sure this is still a problem or are we cargo-culting something 
> that is in the past?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Akzhan Abdulin 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
> Noah, I suppose that it MUST be a choice of core team. This is a missed 
> usability issue.
> 
> 
> 2013/4/16 Noah Kantrowitz 
> <
 >
> Make a patch and open a ticket and I'm sure btm and crew will be glad to 
> take a look :) It might need to wait for a major release since it would be 
> a backwards-incompatible change, but this would only affect people 
> subclassing the file resource I think, which should be somewhat rare so 
> maybe we can just put out a warning.
> 
> --Noah
> 
> On Apr 16, 2013, at 11:25 AM, Akzhan Abdulin wrote:
> 
> > Mike, take a note that recipe authors aren't ruby pro's (more 
> > administrators than programmers). So we need to keep recipe syntax as 
> > simple as can.
> >
> > File.exists? phrase is more intuitive than ::File.exists? one. No 
> > namespace collision issue in mind.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/4/16 Mike 
> > <
 >
> > So we're back to me not understanding the problem that Akzhan is stating.
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Noah Kantrowitz 
> > <
 >
> >  wrote:
> > > Yep, the issue is that recipe code is executed in the Chef::Recipe 
> > > namespace, so "File" gets you Chef::File. Not sure there is a 
> > > workaround given Ruby's structure for name lookups.
> > >
> > > --Noah
> > >
> > > On Apr 16, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Mike wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't understand.
> > >>
> > >> By using ::File, aren't you guaranteeing that you're using the root 
> > >> namespace?
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Akzhan Abdulin
> > >> <
 >
> > >>  wrote:
> > >>> Hello Chiefs,
> > >>>
> > >>> I have insight, - Chef classes should never be named as system ones.
> > >>>
> > >>> We need to eliminate ::File and so on notation.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yours sincerely,
> > >>>  Akzhan.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> 2013/4/16 Avishai Ish-Shalom 
> > >>> <
 >
> > >>>>
> > >>>> inline_recipe "test" do
> > >>>>
> > >>>>     block do
> > >>>>             log "testing resource group"
> > >>>>
> > >>>>             file "/tmp/test1" do
> > >>>>
> > >>>>                     mode "0600"
> > >>>>
> > >>>>             end
> > >>>>     end
> > >>>>     action :nothing
> > >>>>
> > >>>>     notifies :write, "log[test]"
> > >>>>
> > >>>>  only_if { ::File.exists? "/tmp/test2" }
> > >>>>
> > >>>> end
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> https://github.com/avishai-ish-shalom/chef-inline-recipe/blob/master/recipes/default.rb
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail