[chef] Re: Re: Re: Re: where is the better place for this code?

[Juan Jesús Ojeda Croissier < >]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Andrea Campi
<
 >
 wrote:
> 2011/11/16 Juan Jesús Ojeda Croissier 
> <
 >:
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Andrea Campi
>>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 12:41 AM, Juan Jesús Ojeda Croissier 
>>> <
 >
>>>  wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> I wrote some code for this (which is currently working), but I don't
>>>> know if I did in the right place and in the right way. I love to have
>>>> it at Chef, but I guess it need to be proven useful and the community
>>>> agree. By now I put it in my cookbooks at:
>>>> cookbooks/the_cookbook/libraries/file.rb
>>>>
>>>> Here is the actual code and example or recipe using it:
>>>> https://gist.github.com/1368640
>>>>
>>>> But I'll write down here a simplier version:
>>>>
>>>> def include?(str)
>>>>  file_content = ::File.open(@path).read
>>>>  return true if file_content =~ /#{str}/
>>>>  return false
>>>> end
>>>>
>>>> def replace(str, str2)
>>>>  old_content = ::File.open(@path).read
>>>>  content old_content.gsub(str, str2)
>>>> end
>>>>
>>>> These methods are Chef::Resource::File's methods. I wrote like that
>>>> because was the only way I got them working, but it seems to me that
>>>> it should be a Providers' instead... I don't know...
>>>
>>> Looking only at your gist it's a wash, but in general yes, I would use an 
>>> LWRP. Keep the library, but put the "file" resource in an LWRP.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, but I don't get what you are saying :-/ I thing my English is
>> not as good as I thought. What do you mean by 'wash'?
>
> Ah, sorry, it's kind of idiomatic—I meant "you can do it either way,
> each has pros and cons".
>

Thanks, I learn something every day :-)

>> Could you explain to me what do you mean by keep the library but
>> putting the 'file' resource in an LWRP? I'm a bit confuse, sorry.
>
> Sure.
> In your gist, I wouldn't change anything in the library; I would
> remove the recipe and replace it with an LWRP:
>
> resources/gtk_bookmarks.rb
>
> action :replace # and possibly more
>
> attribute :name, :kind_of => String, :name_attribute => true
> attribute :owner, :kind_of => String
> attribute :group, :kind_of => String
> attribute :before, :kind_of => String
> attribute :after, :kind_of => String
>
>
> providers/gtk_bookmarks.rb
>
> action :replace do
>  file new_resource.name do
>    replace(new_resource.before, new_resource.after) if
> include?(new_resource.before)
>    owner new_resource.owner
>    group new_resource.group
>    mode "0644"
>    action :create_if_missing
>  end
> end
>
>
> This way you can call it with:
>
> <cookbook_name>_gtk_bookmarks "/home/#{node.user}/.gtk-bookmarks" do
>  before "smb"
>  after "smb"
>  owner node.user
>  group node.user
>  action :replace
> end
>
>
> Makes more sense?
>

Makes a lot of sense :-)
You actually give me some light about how to use LWRP. I think I
have't get fully right before.

>
> Just for completeness: in this case it would probably be easier/faster
> to use a definition instead. But the LWRP is useful in case you want
> to add other actions (:add, :replace, :gsub come to mind).
>
> definitions/gtk_bookmarks.rb
>
> define :gtk_bookmarks_replace do
>  file params[:name] do
>    replace(params[:before], params[:after]) if include?(params[:before])
>    owner params[:owner]
>    group params[:group]
>    mode "0644"
>    action :create_if_missing
>  end
> end
>
> You would call this in the exact same way.
>

Another piece of light, thanks :-)

>
> One more thing to keep in mind in all cases, even your first:
> resources are unique per run, so if you try to modify this same file
> twice in a run, that's going to be a problem. That's true in general,
> but when you introduce LWRPs and definitions it may become hard to
> diagnose.
> The solution here would be something like:
>
> filename = "/path/to/your/file"
> file "#{filename} (replace)" do
>  path filename
>  # and then everything else
> end
>
> Basically this will just make give the resource a unique name (which
> will show up in logs), and then set the "real" path.
>

That's really good to know. Thanks again :-)

> Hope it helps.

It does, indeed.

I'll try with the LWRP.
Anyway, I'd love to have methods like those availables from all the
cookbooks wich are going to manage files. Also a provider for
conffiles (as the FreeBSD service) would be nice, don't you think?
Maybe I look into that after I finish this...

Thank you so much for your help. I really appreciate it.

-- 
Juanje