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

Add option property to haproxy_listen #470

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

eheydrick
Copy link
Contributor

@eheydrick eheydrick commented Jan 28, 2022

Signed-off-by: Eric Heydrick eheydrick@gmail.com

Description

Add option property to haproxy_listen like the frontend and backend resources already have.

Issues Resolved

#469

Check List

  • A summary of changes made is included in the CHANGELOG under ## Unreleased
  • New functionality includes testing.
  • New functionality has been documented in the README if applicable.

Signed-off-by: Eric Heydrick <eheydrick@gmail.com>
@eheydrick eheydrick requested a review from a team as a code owner January 28, 2022 22:48
@ramereth ramereth linked an issue Jan 28, 2022 that may be closed by this pull request
@ramereth ramereth added the Release: Minor Release to Chef Supermarket as a minor release when merged label Jan 28, 2022
Copy link

@majormoses majormoses left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good overall but I probably don't understand some of the nuances in terms of haproxy config.

@@ -419,6 +419,13 @@ listen <%= key %>
<% if listen['default_backend'] -%>
default_backend <%= listen['default_backend'] %>
<% end %>
<% unless nil_or_empty?(listen['option']) %>
<% listen['option'].each do | option |%>
<% option.each do | option | %>

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I can't say I am running haproxy in my envs, the example seems to be a flat array but it looks like we are iterating as if its an array of arrays. Can this be an array of array options? If so could we add an example to the documentation?

Copy link
Contributor

@bmhughes bmhughes Jan 29, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Got to agree, can we confirm this is correct as it looks like a mistake?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah it does look funny. I based it on how it's done for frontend and backend. Looks like it's because :option takes an Array which then gets pushed into another array. And so the template has to iterate over both array dimensions.

We have the same situation with :acl except it gets flattened into a 1D array, hence no need for the extra iteration.

We could switch to the flatten approach for option or merge this as-is and do the cleanup later.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Gotcha, I don't really have the time to dig into this to see why the code was written that way but it's certainly a way to do that. I lean towards using flatten as we have an established pattern and that is a little clearer as to the intent (without reading a lot of code) even if they are both equally correct/complete. That being said I could be talked into accepting it as is if other reviewers agree.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm happy to switch to flatten if nobody objects.

@@ -419,6 +419,13 @@ listen <%= key %>
<% if listen['default_backend'] -%>
default_backend <%= listen['default_backend'] %>
<% end %>
<% unless nil_or_empty?(listen['option']) %>
<% listen['option'].each do | option |%>
<% option.each do | option | %>
Copy link
Contributor

@bmhughes bmhughes Jan 29, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Got to agree, can we confirm this is correct as it looks like a mistake?

@damacus damacus added the Waiting on Contributor Awaiting on the person who raised this to update label Feb 7, 2022
@damacus damacus requested a review from majormoses March 1, 2023 09:30
@damacus damacus requested a review from xorima October 3, 2023 08:22
@damacus
Copy link
Member

damacus commented Jan 31, 2024

@bmhughes shall we take this piece on and make a new PR with it? Unless @eheydrick can fix the suggestions?

Thanks!

@bmhughes
Copy link
Contributor

@bmhughes shall we take this piece on and make a new PR with it? Unless @eheydrick can fix the suggestions?

Thanks!

Yeh i'll take a look at this @damacus, got a feeling the nested array problem is a mistake from when I converted this over to a library only cookbook.

@bmhughes
Copy link
Contributor

Superceeded by #504

@bmhughes bmhughes closed this Jan 31, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Release: Minor Release to Chef Supermarket as a minor release when merged Waiting on Contributor Awaiting on the person who raised this to update
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

haproxy_listen resource should have option param
6 participants