[chef] Re: Notifies with an unsupported action

[Noah Gibbs < >]

  To me, it definitely makes sense to at the very least warn when an 
unsupported operation is given.  Mysterious no-ops are probably the most 
frustrating part of my current beginner experience with Chef, and tracking 
them down is often painful (I'm currently tracking down a mysterious no-op on 
"supports" with a User block and :manage_home => true, and another mysterious 
no-op on a cookbook_file block).

  Turning typos or requests for unsupported operations into mysterious no-ops 
does beginners no favors.

--- On Tue, 1/11/11, Mark J. Reed 
<
 >
 wrote:

> From: Mark J. Reed 
> <
 >
> Subject: [chef] Notifies with an unsupported action
> To: 
> 
 
> Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 12:13 PM
> Soliciting opinions here. 
> IYESHO, what should happen in this situation?
> 
> service "foo" do
>    supports :restart => false
> end
> 
> file "blah" do
>     notifies :restart, "service[foo]"
> end
> 
> Right now, it depends upon the provider.  The init
> provider will
> translate the restart action into a sequence of stop, start
> actions.
> The upstart provider will ignore the "supports" declaration
> and call
> restart anyway.
> 
> The current behavior is defensible; the "supports"
> declaration is
> clearly a lie for any Upstart service.  I'm just
> trying to work around
> an issue (http://tickets.opscode.com/browse/CHEF-1971) wherein
> "restart" doesn't work the way Chef expects it to for
> Upstart
> services.
> 
> I wonder if it would make more sense to handle 'supports'
> at a higher
> level and reject any attempt to send an action that is
> declared as
> unsupported.  Or at least have the service resource
> itself, rather
> than the individual providers, handle things like
> translating restart
> into stop/start.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> -- 
> Mark J. Reed 
> <
 >
>