ansible_network_working_group
LOGS
16:00:34 <Qalthos> #startmeeting Ansible Network Working Group
16:00:34 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Jan 23 16:00:34 2019 UTC.
16:00:34 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
16:00:34 <zodbot> The chair is Qalthos. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:34 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:34 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'ansible_network_working_group'
16:01:07 <Qalthos> #chair ganeshrn justjais trishnag IPvSean
16:01:07 <zodbot> Current chairs: IPvSean Qalthos ganeshrn justjais trishnag
16:01:21 <Qalthos> #topic Core Updates
16:01:28 <Qalthos> #info vyos provider v2.7.3 released
16:01:36 <Qalthos> #info Fixed ansible_connect_timeout being passed as extra vars
16:01:48 <Qalthos> #info More work on network facts gathering for 2.8
16:01:56 <Qalthos> #info Added terminal and cliconf plugins for Free Range Routing platform.
16:02:01 <Qalthos> #info Added multiple public keys support for ios_user
16:02:15 <Qalthos> #info Fixed cisco_ios provider issue - #86
16:03:17 <Qalthos> #topic Last week's action items
16:04:42 <Qalthos> Last week https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/50801 was brought up, and we asked that anyone maintaining a platform voice any thoughts on the change on the PR
16:05:25 <Qalthos> There haven't been any complaints, so that's going to get merged this week, barring any last-minute objections
16:05:46 <Qalthos> #action merge ansible/ansible#50801
16:06:46 <Qalthos> Moving on, the agenda (as always) can be found at
16:06:49 <Qalthos> #link https://github.com/ansible/community/labels/network
16:07:24 <Qalthos> But we don't have anything on the agenda for today, so
16:07:28 <Qalthos> #topic Open Floor
16:07:40 <Federico87_> just add this on agenda
16:07:41 <Federico87_> https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/50705
16:07:50 <Federico87_> is ready to merge I believe :)
16:08:18 <Qalthos> #topic ios ntp module
16:09:54 <Federico87_> All test are passed. Is it good to merge it?
16:11:16 <Qalthos> Other than the changes you've made, it would be nice to show an example of the module actually doing something... You don't have an integration test that tests changing the configuration (instead of removing it)
16:11:35 <Qalthos> Also, you've put your unit tests in the integration test directory?
16:12:19 <Qalthos> Wait, what
16:12:35 <Federico87_> There is the 'absent' test that removes config. That could be ok?
16:12:47 <Qalthos> Okay, your unit tests are in the integration directory and your integration tests are in the integration directory
16:13:07 <Federico87_> Also, I have use it for production changes. Can I use that results as test?
16:13:09 <Qalthos> No, hold on
16:13:35 <Federico87_> ok
16:13:37 * Qalthos takes another drink of tea in hopes of thinking more clearly
16:14:40 <Qalthos> Okay, ignore everything I said about where things are, I apparently have been struck with a temporary madness
16:15:20 <Qalthos> You should, however, add a test to show that if you change the configuration from what's in the fixture, the appropriate commands are sent
16:15:44 <Qalthos> Removing the configuration is one thing, but being able to detect the correct changes and apply them is another
16:16:22 <Federico87_> you mean return the commands list?
16:16:23 <Qalthos> As for your integration tests... they don't test anything
16:16:54 <Federico87_> great...just when I thought I started to understand something about test :'(
16:16:58 <Qalthos> yes, similar to how your first test was set up, but with different config so that a change is detected
16:17:16 <Federico87_> Ok, I' ll work on it...
16:18:54 <Qalthos> Your integration tests run the module, great. But you don't do anything with the results... you're not verifying that certain output is found, or even if it returns changed=True or False
16:19:23 <Qalthos> And I don't see you cleaning up device state at all, though I might not be seeing it
16:19:40 <Federico87_> the return should be checked as pipeline failed in first instance because I put the wrong return
16:19:40 <Qalthos> #action Qalthos distill all these comments into a PR review
16:20:17 <Federico87_> anyway I ll have a look :)
16:21:10 <Qalthos> Do you mean the second test failing because the first test ran improperly? That's what I mean by cleaning up state. These tests should be entirely independent of each other and of the initial state of the device
16:21:34 <Qalthos> Otherwise they could fail for reasons entirely unrelated to the thing they are meant to be testing
16:22:14 <Federico87_> o
16:22:15 <Federico87_> k
16:22:17 <Qalthos> You'll get the hang of it eventually
16:26:44 <Qalthos> #topic Open Floor
16:26:55 <Qalthos> Anyone else have anything they want to bring up?
16:30:53 <ankitb_07> Guys, I wanted to know when would be the code freeze for ansible 2.8? I was going to do few pull requests for new modules. Thanks.
16:32:10 <Qalthos> ankitb_07: https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/devel/roadmap/ROADMAP_2_8.html says late March
16:34:33 <ankitb_07> Thank you Qalthos. So, I can make pull requests and follow the procedure for adding new modules? Just need the confirmation before I start working on it. Thanks.
16:36:09 <Qalthos> Yup, new community modules need to be in before 2019-03-21, other than that, just follow the normal procedure
16:37:01 <ankitb_07> Thanks. :)
16:44:43 <Qalthos> Alright, then, thanks everyone for coming by, and have a good week
16:45:01 <Qalthos> #endmeeting