Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

(PDK-715) Use correct module template branch/ref #368

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 4, 2017

Conversation

bmjen
Copy link
Contributor

@bmjen bmjen commented Dec 1, 2017

For gem installs, we need to make sure they use a compatible
module-template version, similar to what we do for package installs
in our build process. For development, we still want to use the
default git branch.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.09%) to 93.125% when pulling 22603bd on bmjen:fix-git into 2fe6884 on puppetlabs:master.

@bmjen bmjen changed the title (maint) fix module template clone to work with package installs (PDK-715) Use correct module template branch/ref Dec 4, 2017
@bmjen bmjen requested a review from scotje December 4, 2017 19:38
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Dec 4, 2017

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.2%) to 93.043% when pulling 19a2488 on bmjen:fix-git into 2fe6884 on puppetlabs:master.

Copy link
Contributor

@scotje scotje left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Had one comment about what development_mode? is checking but other than that this seems fine for now.

lib/pdk/util.rb Outdated
def development_mode?
PDK::VERSION.end_with? 'pre'
end
module_function :development_mode?
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should this maybe test if the code is part of a git checkout or something instead?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It could, but that could complicate matters if we (or others) attempt to run a tag from source for a repro or something? I think ultimately, the simplicity of just checking whether we're on an "official" version or a dev/preview version is more explicit. I could go either way.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.2%) to 93.043% when pulling a425953 on bmjen:fix-git into 2fe6884 on puppetlabs:master.

@bmjen bmjen force-pushed the fix-git branch 2 times, most recently from 19a2488 to 18175b1 Compare December 4, 2017 21:25
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.2%) to 93.043% when pulling 18175b1 on bmjen:fix-git into 2fe6884 on puppetlabs:master.

@scotje
Copy link
Contributor

scotje commented Dec 4, 2017

This seems like it breaks anyone using a custom template repo that doesn't have the hard coded version/ref. Does just adding and plumbing through a --template-ref option solve things more cleanly?

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.1%) to 93.09% when pulling ca11c60 on bmjen:fix-git into 2fe6884 on puppetlabs:master.

For gem installs, we need to make sure they use a compatible
module-template version, similar to what we do for package installs
in our build process. For development, we still want to use the
default git branch.
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.1%) to 93.09% when pulling 456f645 on bmjen:fix-git into 2fe6884 on puppetlabs:master.

@scotje scotje merged commit 11632e2 into puppetlabs:master Dec 4, 2017
@bmjen bmjen deleted the fix-git branch March 11, 2019 22:34
@chelnak chelnak added the bug label Jan 16, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants