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

[Daniel DeLeo < >]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Lamont Granquist wrote:

> On 6/29/15 3:30 PM, Noah Kantrowitz wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 2015, at 3:26 PM, Daniel DeLeo 
> > <
 
> >  
> > (mailto:
 )>
> >  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.

Yep, stuff like this is why I want a compromise, either recipe do; end, or 
just #declare_resource/#build_resource or something.

--  
Daniel DeLeo