(PDK-1607)(PDK-1608) Implement system-level settings for PDK configuration #841

glennsarti · 2020-02-03T04:14:11Z

~~Blocked by #849~~

PDK-1607

Previously in commit 5cb9b92 the pdk config get command was added however
this was in contrary to the Verb-Noun UX for the PDK CLI. This commit:

Copies the pdk config and pdk config get code (and tests) to be
pdk get and pdk get config respectively
Adds deprecation notices to the pdk config * commands
Updates tests for the deprecation notices

PDK-1608

Previously only per-user settings existed for the PDK::Config classes. This
commit:

Adds the concept and file locations for system level settings
Adds helper methods to PDK::Config to make it easier to query multilevel
settings, and to query using precedence
Makes it easier to eventually add per-project settings
Adds tests for the new methods
Deprecates the use of ".user". Once a ".set(..)" method is completed in the
future, this method will be removed entirely

Note that the various PDK Modules and Classes still won't consume system-level
settings until they use the PDK.config.pdk_setting(... method. Currently they
still use PDK.config.user[.... This will changed in later commits.

coveralls · 2020-02-03T04:26:30Z

Coverage decreased (-0.2%) to 91.213% when pulling 7a32baa on glennsarti:pdk-1608-system-level-settings into bfcd14a on puppetlabs:master.

lib/pdk/cli/config.rb

lib/pdk/cli/config/get.rb

lib/pdk/config.rb

scotje · 2020-02-06T21:24:31Z

lib/pdk/config.rb

+    def get(*name)
+      return nil if name.nil? || !name.is_a?(Array) || name.empty?
+      case name[0]
+      when 'user'
+        traverse_object(user, *name[1..-1])
+      when 'system'
+        traverse_object(self.system, *name[1..-1]) # rubocop:disable Style/RedundantSelf Use an explicit call so as to not confuse with Kernel.system
+      else
+        nil
+      end
+    end
+
+    # Gets a named setting using precedence from the user and system levels
+    # Note that name must NOT include user or system prefix
+    def pdk_setting(*name)
+      value = get(*['user'].concat(name))
+      value.nil? ? get(*['system'].concat(name)) : value


I feel like we are mostly going to want the "lookup using precedence" behavior that is currently implemented in pdk_setting(), so maybe what is currently get() should be like get_within_scope(scope, *name) and then the "lookup using precedence" can just become get()?

I disagree here, but I believe I can the point your trying to make here. And I guess it depends on the consumers point of view.

In the future, we'll have at least one addition setting level, project., or even multiple different ones (control_repo. or module.).

So I see

PDK::Config.get(...) to be the most specific form. "Get me this setting name"

PDK::Config.pdk_setting to be a helper, to stop copying the precedence logic. I chose pdk_setting so it would (hopefully) be obvious that this is only a PDK setting, not a Project setting.

I do concede that PDK::Config.pdk_setting seems like a redundant name.

As for your suggestion:

get_within_scope(scope, *name) makes perfect sense

but get() only returning user and system level settings may be a confusing method name.

That said, I do like that we both agree on the layout of the methods, just the method names need some discussion 👍

@scotje You happy for merge are would prefer a name change?

Doesn't it seem possible people will want to override a "PDK" setting at the project scope at some point as well? Or is it clear that the system/user settings will never overlap with project settings?

It seems like what we need for a general interface is:

get a setting based on default precedence rules (I think that would be project > user > system?)

get a setting from a specific precedence level

(maybe?) get a setting from a specific subset of precedence levels (for when the caller has a special reason for bypassing normal precedence)

So maybe it's just that get_within_scope should also accept a list for the scope parameter? Or we could have a get_within_scopes?

Okay, I've basically implemented what you stated. I've gone with:

.get This gets a fully named setting e.g. user.foo.bar. No scope precedence, just literal "Get this setting called <blah>"

.get_within_scopes : This gets a setting name in zero or more specified scopes (in order). If no scopes are given (nil) then it searches in the default scopes in the default order.

Which ends up with:

For the bulk of calls within /lib/cli/get/config .get is probably the best

For the bulk of calls within /lib/* .get_within_scopes is probably the best

For critical calls like analytics information, it can be restricted to .get_within_scopes('....', ['user', 'system']). Later on, I may add a shortcut method (def critical_scopes; ['user', 'system'].freeze; end;) if I find that we use it too often.

glennsarti · 2020-02-12T08:25:14Z

The Travis failure is incidental to this PR.

Previously in commit 5cb9b92 the `pdk config get` command was added however this was in contrary to the Verb-Noun UX for the PDK CLI. This commit: * Copies the `pdk config` and `pdk config get` code (and tests) to be `pdk get` and `pdk get config` respectively * Adds deprecation notices to the `pdk config *` commands * Updates tests for the deprecation notices

Previously only per-user settings existed for the PDK::Config classes. This commit: * Adds the concept and file locations for system level settings * Adds helper methods to PDK::Config to make it easier to query multilevel settings, and to query using precedence * Makes it easier to eventually add per-project settings * Adds tests for the new methods * Deprecates the use of ".user". Once a ".set(..)" method is completed in the future, this method will be removed entirely Note that the various PDK Modules and Classes still won't consume system-level settings until they use the `PDK.config.pdk_setting(...` method. Currently they still use `PDK.config.user[...`. This will changed in later commits.

scotje

Just a couple questions about .dup but overall this is looking great!

lib/pdk/config/namespace.rb

lib/pdk/config/setting.rb

Previously it was possible to get a current PDK configuration setting and then accidentally make changes to it, which would bypass the data saving code. This would also corrupt the setting when other parts of the PDK try to access the same setting. This commit duplicates the setting and default values which now isolates the value from any changes. And adds tests for the isolation.

scotje

Looks good to me!

glennsarti requested a review from a team as a code owner February 3, 2020 04:14

glennsarti self-assigned this Feb 3, 2020

glennsarti force-pushed the pdk-1608-system-level-settings branch 2 times, most recently from b2309f3 to fba400a Compare February 4, 2020 11:37

glennsarti mentioned this pull request Feb 4, 2020

(PDK-1113) Use PDK configuration instead of AnswerFile class #842

Merged

scotje reviewed Feb 6, 2020

View reviewed changes

lib/pdk/cli/config.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

lib/pdk/cli/config/get.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

lib/pdk/config.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

scotje reviewed Feb 6, 2020

View reviewed changes

glennsarti force-pushed the pdk-1608-system-level-settings branch 2 times, most recently from 6e63e50 to 15078ec Compare February 7, 2020 06:55

rodjek approved these changes Feb 10, 2020

View reviewed changes

glennsarti force-pushed the pdk-1608-system-level-settings branch 2 times, most recently from 3acd956 to 2ed9624 Compare February 17, 2020 02:32

glennsarti requested review from scotje and rodjek February 17, 2020 02:55

glennsarti force-pushed the pdk-1608-system-level-settings branch from 2ed9624 to 43a055f Compare February 17, 2020 02:57

scotje reviewed Feb 18, 2020

View reviewed changes

lib/pdk/config/namespace.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

lib/pdk/config/setting.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

glennsarti force-pushed the pdk-1608-system-level-settings branch from 00d5852 to 7a32baa Compare February 19, 2020 07:02

scotje approved these changes Feb 19, 2020

View reviewed changes

glennsarti merged commit 64a6d43 into puppetlabs:master Feb 20, 2020

rodjek added the enhancement label Feb 26, 2020

glennsarti deleted the pdk-1608-system-level-settings branch March 5, 2020 04:56

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

(PDK-1607)(PDK-1608) Implement system-level settings for PDK configuration #841

(PDK-1607)(PDK-1608) Implement system-level settings for PDK configuration #841

glennsarti commented Feb 3, 2020 •

edited

coveralls commented Feb 3, 2020 •

edited

scotje Feb 6, 2020

glennsarti Feb 7, 2020

glennsarti Feb 7, 2020

glennsarti Feb 11, 2020

scotje Feb 14, 2020

glennsarti Feb 17, 2020 •

edited

glennsarti commented Feb 12, 2020

scotje left a comment

scotje left a comment

(PDK-1607)(PDK-1608) Implement system-level settings for PDK configuration #841

(PDK-1607)(PDK-1608) Implement system-level settings for PDK configuration #841

Conversation

glennsarti commented Feb 3, 2020 • edited

coveralls commented Feb 3, 2020 • edited

scotje Feb 6, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

glennsarti Feb 7, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

glennsarti Feb 7, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

glennsarti Feb 11, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

scotje Feb 14, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

glennsarti Feb 17, 2020 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

glennsarti commented Feb 12, 2020

scotje left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

scotje left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

glennsarti commented Feb 3, 2020 •

edited

coveralls commented Feb 3, 2020 •

edited

glennsarti Feb 17, 2020 •

edited