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

feat(master): enable option to set master scheduler #484

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

feat(master): enable option to set master scheduler #484

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

kartnico
Copy link

What type of PR is this?

Enable configuration of scheduling option on master : https://docs.saltstack.com/en/latest/topics/jobs/#scheduling-runners

Primary type

  • [build] Changes related to the build system
  • [chore] Changes to the build process or auxiliary tools and libraries such as documentation generation
  • [ci] Changes to the continuous integration configuration
  • [feat] A new feature
  • [fix] A bug fix
  • [perf] A code change that improves performance
  • [refactor] A code change that neither fixes a bug nor adds a feature
  • [revert] A change used to revert a previous commit
  • [style] Changes that do not affect the meaning of the code (white-space, formatting, missing semi-colons, etc.)

Secondary type

  • [docs] Documentation changes
  • [test] Adding missing or correcting existing tests

Does this PR introduce a BREAKING CHANGE?

No.

Related issues and/or pull requests

#323

Describe the changes you're proposing

Take the same implementation than minion configuration file : #323

Documentation checklist

  • Updated the README (e.g. Available states).
  • Updated pillar.example.

@kartnico kartnico requested a review from a team as a code owner August 19, 2020 16:56
@pull-assistant
Copy link

Score: 1.00

Best reviewed: commit by commit


Optimal code review plan

     feat(master): enable option to set master scheduler

Powered by Pull Assistant. Last update 3ab819a ... 3ab819a. Read the comment docs.

Comment on lines +136 to +140
{%- for child in children %}
{%- for key, value in child.items() %}
{{ key }}: {{ value }}
{%- endfor -%}
{%- endfor -%}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe this for loop should be indented?

Comment on lines +163 to +164
- function: winrepo.update_git_repos
- hours: 6
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@myii
Copy link
Member

myii commented Aug 25, 2020

@kartnico An important point to note is that we're in the process of deprecating the configuration using salt/files/master.d/f_defaults.conf -- rather, we've implemented TOFS here instead -- see the lengthy discussion at #398 and the deprecation thread at #417. However, that doesn't block this PR getting merged in the meantime, if it still proves useful -- the changes just won't be around eventually.

@daks
Copy link
Member

daks commented Aug 26, 2020

@kartnico An important point to note is that we're in the process of deprecating the configuration using salt/files/master.d/f_defaults.conf -- rather, we've implemented TOFS here instead -- see the lengthy discussion at #398 and the deprecation thread at #417. However, that doesn't block this PR getting merged in the meantime, if it still proves useful -- the changes just won't be around eventually.

I have no idea what this implies to users of this formula (I don't know TOFS), I hope we document clearly what are the needed changes when we decide to implement this breaking change

@myii
Copy link
Member

myii commented Aug 26, 2020

I have no idea what this implies to users of this formula (I don't know TOFS), I hope we document clearly what are the needed changes when we decide to implement this breaking change

@daks This is the specific comment that explains it: #398 (comment). I've now linked to it in the main comment in #417 as well. Actually, the TOFS method is much simpler than the current pillar-based method. To transfer over, you just take your existing rendered .conf files and put them in the TOFS hierarchy at the right level. Straight files, not templates.

@daks
Copy link
Member

daks commented Aug 27, 2020

I don't like the idea of just pushing files, that's not how I imagine config management, but OK.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants