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

[Noah Kantrowitz < >]

Yeah, inside LWRPs is enough of an advanced user-case to not be a worry. I 
think Andrea pointed out the important bit, it used to be a problem for 
normal recipe code but was fixed as part of other structural changes a while 
ago and we all just didn't notice and kept repeating the ::File pattern.

--Noah

On Apr 16, 2013, at 2:01 PM, Jesse Nelson wrote:

> If you're writing a provider and you don't grok namespaces you might 
> benefit from educating yourself. Is the expectation that admins are writing 
> LWRP's without at least reading a basic introduction to ruby ?
> 
> It would seem to me that they would want in most cases to actually use 
> chefs File more often than ::File or even FileUtils for most of the 
> operations at this level in LWRP. 
> 
> Chef::Resource::File makes perfect sense to me, but 
> Chef::Resource::FileResource seem quite redundant. I rather keep the 
> internals concise. If its a common issue then you can probe tell if someone 
> is trying to use Chef::Resource::File or ::File in the Chef::Resource::File 
> by the way they call it, and raise a nice message explaining that you 
> probably meant to use ::File.
> 
> my $0.02
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 1:40 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