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 support for policy objects #324

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Apr 6, 2023

Conversation

qha
Copy link
Contributor

@qha qha commented Apr 12, 2022

Fixes: #316

@qha qha force-pushed the add-support-for-policy-objects branch from a8e832e to 58bacae Compare April 12, 2022 14:16
@qha qha force-pushed the add-support-for-policy-objects branch from 58bacae to 9960ab2 Compare May 19, 2022 07:53
Copy link

@TjeuKayim TjeuKayim left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I tested this pull-request, and it is functional. Only minor issues that I could work around. Good how you made it fit in nicely with the rest of the module.

lib/puppet/type/firewalld_policy.rb Show resolved Hide resolved
lib/puppet/type/firewalld_policy.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@qha
Copy link
Contributor Author

qha commented Jul 12, 2022

Thank you for your review! I will work on the issues you spotted but it might take a few weeks as i've dug down in some other projects...

@qha qha changed the title Add support for policy objects Draft: Add support for policy objects Jul 12, 2022
@qha qha force-pushed the add-support-for-policy-objects branch from 04dcd05 to 6d57ba6 Compare July 13, 2022 15:01
@qha
Copy link
Contributor Author

qha commented Jul 14, 2022

As you might have seen i've addressed the issues you spotted but i won't have time to test them properly until some time in august at best.

@qha qha force-pushed the add-support-for-policy-objects branch 2 times, most recently from d98491f to dbbca6a Compare August 18, 2022 12:57
@qha
Copy link
Contributor Author

qha commented Aug 18, 2022

I just did some real life testing and things seem to work as expected.

I've squished my fixes and rebased on master to remove the merge conflict.

After rebasing the spec tests report an error on my workstation but i don't think it's related as the same error is present in the master branch.

@qha qha changed the title Draft: Add support for policy objects Add support for policy objects Aug 18, 2022
@qha qha changed the title Add support for policy objects Draft: Add support for policy objects Aug 19, 2022
@qha
Copy link
Contributor Author

qha commented Aug 19, 2022

Sorry, i need to fix another thing. The firewalld_policy type insists that ingress and egress zones are arrays which is normally resonable but i don't think it is when ensure is absent.

@qha qha force-pushed the add-support-for-policy-objects branch 5 times, most recently from 74f2bcc to 15e2c23 Compare August 25, 2022 11:45
@qha
Copy link
Contributor Author

qha commented Aug 25, 2022

There, ingress_zone and egress_zone may now be emtpy if ensure is absent.

@qha qha changed the title Draft: Add support for policy objects Add support for policy objects Aug 25, 2022
@jcpunk
Copy link
Contributor

jcpunk commented Dec 19, 2022

Can I help get this ready for merge in?

@jcpunk
Copy link
Contributor

jcpunk commented Jan 25, 2023

@qha can you squash this down again?

@jcpunk jcpunk requested a review from TjeuKayim February 3, 2023 17:55
@qha
Copy link
Contributor Author

qha commented Feb 9, 2023

Sorry for being so slow to respond, i was busy going to and recovering from a conference.
If i'm supposed to squash my changes into some other combination of commits i would need more detailed specifications as i feel the current partitioning is the most appropriate and the remote second should be available to whoever merges this with two clicks (squash and merge).
@jcpunk

end
end

def purge_rich_rules
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would adding the #instances method to the provider(s) be an alternative to this to allow purging of unmanaged resources?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Perhaps i would have known while this was fresh in my mind but i don't now. I hope someone else can answer this.

@jcpunk
Copy link
Contributor

jcpunk commented Feb 9, 2023

The main squashing I had in mind was regarding the readme and reference updates. Having the parameter name tweaks in a separate commit may or may not add clarity.

@qha
Copy link
Contributor Author

qha commented Feb 10, 2023

I see. If i recall correctly i did it that way because the reference had not been updated the last few commits so updating it introduced unrelated changes that i did not want to put in the same commit.
Would it help if i updated the reference before the main commit in this pr in one commit and then did so again as part of the main commit?

@jcpunk
Copy link
Contributor

jcpunk commented Feb 10, 2023

I see. If i recall correctly i did it that way because the reference had not been updated the last few commits so updating it introduced unrelated changes that i did not want to put in the same commit. Would it help if i updated the reference before the main commit in this pr in one commit and then did so again as part of the main commit?

That is fine with me

Closes: voxpupuli#316

(Also recreate reference with 'bundle exec rake reference'.)
@qha qha force-pushed the add-support-for-policy-objects branch from 15e2c23 to 708ff6c Compare February 13, 2023 12:06
@qha
Copy link
Contributor Author

qha commented Feb 13, 2023

I see. If i recall correctly i did it that way because the reference had not been updated the last few commits so updating it introduced unrelated changes that i did not want to put in the same commit. Would it help if i updated the reference before the main commit in this pr in one commit and then did so again as part of the main commit?

That is fine with me

I can't find the other changes i thought i remembered so i just squashed the last commit into the main one.

@jcpunk
Copy link
Contributor

jcpunk commented Mar 31, 2023

Unless there are any objections I'd like to merge this in next week.

@jcpunk jcpunk merged commit 5f9836e into voxpupuli:master Apr 6, 2023
@jhoblitt jhoblitt added the enhancement New feature or request label Oct 20, 2023
@qha qha deleted the add-support-for-policy-objects branch November 13, 2023 14:08
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

support for policy objects missing
5 participants