[chef] Re: run_context.include_recipe in a recipe within a role

[Joseph Holsten < >]

lusis: I think `include_recipe`  is no longer required to access libraries in 
chef 11, but I vaguely rembemer this being an issue in chef <= 10. I'm pretty 
sure that's why many library cookbooks have nop recipes/default.rb files.

Also, `include_recipe` used to be unavailable in the lwrp dsl, which was one 
of the many reasons I just used heavyweight RPs for a long time. I'm pretty 
sure this is also no longer true.

And now I want to grumble like an old man. Stupid newfangled DSLs fixing all 
the things that confused me when I started...
--
~j

On 2013-05-29, at 12:07, John E. Vincent (lusis) 
<
 >
 wrote:

> I'm still confused by this. The windows and runit resources, as an example, 
> are not available to a recipe unless include_recipe is used at the top. 
> They've always failed for me otherwise (regardless of including the 
> dependency in metadata.rb). I never bothered to revisit if this was a bug 
> and I've always done include_recipe "runit" (or any recipe for that matter) 
> where I needed the resources from that LWRP in the recipe itself.
> 
> I'm totally willing to admit I've been wrong all this time but there was a 
> reason I did it at one point and it fixed the problem at the time. I just 
> never went back and challenged that assumption.
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Ranjib Dey 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
> no.. you dont have to.. the libraries and lwrps are available just by 
> declaring the dependency, u dont have to include the parent cookbook's 
> default or any other recipe. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Cassiano Leal 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
> Just to understand better, do I actually need to include a library 
> cookbook's recipe in the run_list of a node in order to use its LWRPs?
> 
> I remember a thread not long ago in this mailing list about "how to test 
> library cookbooks without recipes" or something like that, and someone 
> specifically mentioned that requiring the lib cookbook in the metadata file 
> would be enough.
> 
> Just checking. :)
> 
> - cassiano
> 
> On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 14:45, Ranjib Dey wrote:
> 
>> i think both are fine, the non lwrp way. u'll be introducing the 
>> conditionals inside the recipe.. which will
>> 1) reduce the declarativeness of the recipe
>> 2) u'll be limited by the  compile time info , in certain cases
>> 3) testing will be harder
>> 
>> the lwrp opens up a much cleaner way to reuse this, brings the 
>> conditionals inside an abstraction, and also allows you to set your 
>> resource's update status depending upon the entire dependency (i.e. now 
>> you can say i was updated if any of the dependant resource were update), 
>> which you might exploit using notification mechanism is anywhere else... 
>> u'll lose most of this if you push these logic in the recipe...
>> no?
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Sean Escriva 
>> <
 >
>>  wrote:
>>> very neat.
>>> 
>>> Notifications from the lwrp are one thing, but IMO include_recipe 
>>> shouldn't need to be in the lwrp because as John mentioned the cookbook 
>>> that provides the lwrp still needs to be included to make use of the 
>>> specific lwrp and as such will run the default recipe. It should also 
>>> result in a simpler lwrp. This seems easier to reason about as well since 
>>> the lwrp is not the distribution mechanism for functionality, the 
>>> cookbook is.
>>> 
>>> As Dan said though, we probably need to see more code to understand the 
>>> full issue
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Ranjib Dey 
>>> <
 >
>>>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> i think its fine to include recipes via provider (or rather execute a 
>>>> whole recipe)
>>>> 
>>>> create a subcontext , and a mini chef run inside it, and converge the 
>>>> node. this is how we used to reuse existing chef resource inside an lwrp 
>>>> earlier..
>>>> yfeldblum had a gist on it.. 
>>>> 
>>>> http://realityforge.org/code/2012/07/17/lwrp-notify-on-changed-resources.html
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Dorian Jaminais 
>>>> <
 >
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> Yes this can be a workaround, still I don't think the behavior I am 
>>>>> getting is normal (and don't understand why) and I'd prefer to find a 
>>>>> cleaner way than having to add a recipe just to include other recipes 
>>>>> whereas it should be the task of my LWRP.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2013/5/29 John E. Vincent (lusis) 
>>>>> <
 >
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Is there a reason you wouldn't, however, just add the "include_recipe" 
>>>>>> statements to the default recipe for the LWRP cookbook then? It's not 
>>>>>> uncommon to do that even for library cookbooks iirc and it gets around 
>>>>>> (I think) the issue you're describing.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Dorian Jaminais 
>>>>>> <
 >
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>> Okay
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I am using a LWRP instead of a recipe because I want to deploy about 
>>>>>>> 15 applications that are very similar.
>>>>>>> All those applications have a dedicated cookbook but as the 
>>>>>>> installation process is always the same work flow, I have factorized 
>>>>>>> it into a LWRP.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The work flow is pretty simple : assert that installation 
>>>>>>> dependencies are met, clone the repo, bundle install the needed gems.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I have attached my provider to this mail (which by the way is 
>>>>>>> included in a cookbook named gios).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In each application's cookbook I use :
>>>>>>> gios_installer NAME do
>>>>>>>     name        NAME
>>>>>>>     repository  GIT_URI
>>>>>>>     command     "./bin/truc"
>>>>>>>     version     "master"
>>>>>>>     action      :install
>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As stated in my previous emails, using the LWRP that way will include 
>>>>>>> the recipes ruby, git, base::certificate, pm-openssh::rsa and 
>>>>>>> pm-openssh::known_hosts only if the LWRP is called exactly once in 
>>>>>>> the run_list.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks for your help
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2013/5/29 Daniel DeLeo 
>>>>>>> <
 >
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Dorian Jaminais wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I am still tracking down my problem and I have some news.
>>>>>>>>> It appears that he problem is not specific to the git cookbook. 
>>>>>>>>> Indeed it appears that all recipes included in a LWRP 
>>>>>>>>> 'run_context.include_recipe' is only really added to the run_list 
>>>>>>>>> if the LWRP is called once during the run_list.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> If the LWRP is called more than once, it tells me that the resource 
>>>>>>>>> has already been added to the run_list even if it has not.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Is this a known bug ? I am doing something wrong ? 
>>>>>>>>> I am failing to find any clues using my google-fu so I am turning 
>>>>>>>>> to your expertise.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 2013/5/29 Dorian Jaminais 
>>>>>>>>> <
 >
>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I am having trouble with LWRP, include_recipe and roles.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I have a LWRP that includes some cookbooks :
>>>>>>>>>>     run_context.include_recipe "git"
>>>>>>>>>>     run_context.include_recipe "internal-cookbook"
>>>>>>>>>>     run_context.include_recipe "build-essential"
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This is a bit odd. Why does the LWRP do this instead of a recipe? 
>>>>>>>> Showing more code, log output, and explaining why you're doing 
>>>>>>>> things this way would help others to understand your issue better.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> Daniel DeLeo
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Dorian JAMINAIS
>>>>>>> System Administrator
>>>>>>> +33 6 95 10 95 37
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Dorian JAMINAIS
>>>>> System Administrator
>>>>> +33 6 95 10 95 37
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>