[chef-dev] Re: Re: Re: 12.4 DSL in core providers

[Lamont Granquist < >]

On 6/29/15 3:30 PM, Noah Kantrowitz wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Daniel DeLeo 
> <
>  >
>  wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Lamont Granquist wrote:
> > > On 6/26/15 4:21 PM, Noah Kantrowitz wrote:
> > > > Throwing this on the mailing list as a reminder since I think I've used up my quota of 
> > > > tickets lately: It would be nice to move towards adding the recipe DSL back to 
> > > > Chef::Provider. Currently there are unpleasant issues when you subclass a non-DSL-using 
> > > > provider and then mix in the DSL module. Several providers have methods with names 
> > > > matching DSL stuffs, 
> > > > (https://github.com/chef/chef/blob/master/lib/chef/provider/git.rb#L324, ;
> > > > https://github.com/chef/chef/blob/master/lib/chef/provider/execute.rb#L30) so if you 
> > > > mix in the DSL such that it comes before the superclass in the MRO, stuff goes haywire. 
> > > > If the DSL was pulled in earlier in the MRO, then the "correct" methods would 
> > > > take priority. I can fix this one-off each time it comes up, but being unable to use 
> > > > the DSL when extending core classes is something I would love to see in the future (ex. 
> > > > https://github.com/poise/application_git/blob/master/lib/poise_application_git/resource.rb
> > > >  and 
> > > > https://github.com/poise/poise-ruby/blob/master/lib/poise_ruby/resources/ruby_execute.rb).
> > > >
> > > > --Noah
> > > Yeah, in retrospect we shouldn't have pulled the Recipe DSL and should
> > > have eliminated method_missing from the Recipe DSL instead. Since we're
> > > going down the road of eliminating method_missing from the Recipe DSL,
> > > it should probably go back into Chef::Provider.
> > I find having the DSL when I don’t want it pretty annoying actually. 
> > method_missing is really annoying since you get absurd errors for any typo’d 
> > method name, but the DSL also camps on a lot of domain words so you can also 
> > invoke it “correctly” on accident as well.
> >
> > Is there a compromise that doesn’t suck, like invoking the DSL only inside a 
> > block or adding just the non-dynamic DSL methods (#declare_resource and 
> > #build_resource) maybe?
> method_missing is being phased out already and will be gone from the DSL in 13. We 
> could certainly put it back in Provider without method_missing too, since we already 
> burned that compat bridge. Doing in a block is possible (see also the fused #action 
> context stuff in resources already), but I think it would be cleaner to find a solution 
> that keeps "real providers" and LWRPs in parity.
>
> --Noah
Yeah, I'd like to see more parity between LWRPs and core resources.

However, it is a good point that even without method_missing we'd be 
allowing cookbook LWRPs to inject methods into the namespace of all the 
core providers.