[chef] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More on Cookbook Design Patterns

[Lamont Granquist < >]

On Thu Apr  3 11:48:08 2014, Jay Perry wrote:
> Tom/Lamont,
> Both of your recommendations are very helpful which I think will help
> give us a baseline of where we want our cookbooks to go.  We have our
> work cut out for us but I think it's necessary for us to get to be
> more flexible with the size of our organization.
>
> @Lamont - Just to clarify when you state "your base role" I think you
> mean "base" cookbook right?  I picture all my application cookbooks
> including the "base" cookbook using 'include_recipe' considering when
> I'm doing testing with test kitchen I don't have to worry about using
> a role and just calling the recipe will include/configure the
> necessary pieces (dns, ldap, yum, apt, etc).  The application cookbook
> would have a depends on the base cookbook via the metadata.rb.

"base role" == "base role cookbook" if you're using role cookbooks.

something to think about is that its kind of nice to be able to use TK 
on an application cookbook and only pull in the dependencies that are 
actually necessary to run and test the application.  it isn't necessary 
for my personal user account to be on the server to run the app, so why 
pull all that in?  also you don't need lsof or tcpdump or any other 
utilities like that installed as well.  not having the base role 
cookbook as a dep of your app cookbook means you won't have to grind 
through the whole base role in order to test.