The Infra team in my company has provided us with sample overthere.SshHost under 'Infrastructure' in XL-Deploy UI that has a predefined private key file and passphrase which is not shared with us.
We are asked to duplicate this file manually in the UI, rename it and create infra entries for our application.
How can I achieve this with puppet?
Lets say the sample file is placed under: Infrastructure/Project1/COMMONS/Template_SshHost
and I need to create an overthere.SshHost under Infrastructure/Project1/UAT/Uat_SshHost and Infrastructure/Project1/PREPROD/Preprod_SshHost by copying the sample file.
Thanks in advance!
You can sync a target file with another file accessible via the local file system by using a File resource whose source attribute specifies the path to the original. You can produce a modified copy in a variety of ways, such as by applying one or more File_line resources (from stdlib) or by applying an appropriate script via an Exec resource.
But if you go that route then you have to either
accept that the target file will be re-synced on every Puppet run, OR
set the File resource's replace attribute to false, in which case changes to the original file will not be propagated into the customized copy.
The latter is probably the more acceptable choice for most people. Its file-copying part might look something like this:
$project_dir = '/path/to/Infrastructure/Project1'
file { "${project_dir}/UAT/Uat_SshHost/overthere.SshHost":
ensure => 'file',
source => "${project_dir}/COMMONS/Template_SshHost/overthere.SshHost",
replace => false,
}
But you might want to consider instead writing a custom type and provider for the target file. That would allow you to incorporate changes from the original template without re-syncing the file on every run, and it would give you a lot more flexibility with respect to the customizations you need to apply. It would also present a simpler interface for you to use in your manifests, which could make managing these easier. But, of course, that's offset by the cost is that writing and maintaining a custom type and provider. Only you can determine whether that would be a worthwhile trade-off.
Related
I wanted to create a job where I need to consider the latest file available as input file.
File format is as below: FILE1.TEST.TYYMMDD
is there any way to identify latest file based on date present in file name via JCL.
P.S. GDG versions are not created in existing process . Only PS file is created.
Thank you
I wanted to create a job where I need to consider the latest file available as input file. File [name] format is as below: FILE1.TEST.TYYMMDD is there any way to identify latest file based on date present in file name via JCL.
No.
You indicate that GDGs are not created in the existing process. GDGs would be the best way to accomplish your goal. Absent GDGs, you must write code.
You could accomplish your goal by writing (C, clist, COBOL, PL/I, Rexx) code using the LMDINIT and LMDLIST ISPF services. Then you would execute your code by running ISPF in batch. Many mainframe shops have a cataloged procedure to execute ISPF in batch.
Agree with #cschneid that there is not a platform way to handle this. However, I want to point out that GDGs are the platform way of managing PS files for access in a relative form.
Your comment
GDG versions are not created in existing process . Only PS file is
created.
That statement didn't make sense to me. GDGs are not a file type like physical sequential (PS) or partitioned (PO). It's a convention to allow relative reference to files created over time which sounds like what you want. I've only seen the use of GDGs for PS files.
Putting the date in the file name can have its uses but to z/OS its only part of the filename and not meta information that it operates on (like G0000v00's in GDGs.
I am trying to read a file content after executing a class GetContentsAPI, basically this class GetContentsAPI will write into the file /etc/api/token.
class Main{
require GetContentsAPI
file("/etc/api/token")
}
When I did the above steps, its says Evaluation Error: Error while evaluating a Function Call, Could not find any files from /etc/api. Not sure how to make sure the file is already created before trying to read.
Thanks James
The file() function reads the contents of a file during catalog building. You don't present any details of class GetContentsApi, but all of the standard puppet facilities that write to files (especially, but not limited to, File resources) write during catalog application. Unless you've cooked up something highly customized, the file() function will always read before GetContentsApi writes.
Moreover, in a master / agent setup (which is the only kind supported in current Puppet), catalog building happens on the master, whereas catalog application happens on the target node, which is usually a different machine, so you're unlikely even to be able to read what was written during a previous catalog-building run.
Also, file() just returns the file contents as a string, so it's not very useful to call it without using the return value somehow.
It's not at all clear what you're trying to achieve, but from what I can see, you are not going in a fruitful direction. Perhaps you should take a step back and ask a different question about that.
I have a cucumber feature file 'A' that serves as setting up environment (data clean up and initialization). I want to have it executed before all other feature files can run.
It's it kind of like #before hook as in http://zsoltfabok.com/blog/2012/09/cucumber-jvm-hooks/. However, that does not work because my feature files 'A' contains hundreds of cucumber steps and it is not as simple as:
#Before
public void beforeScenario() {
tomcat.start();
tomcat.deploy("munger");
browser = new FirefoxDriver();
}
instead it's better to be able to run 'A' as a feature file as a whole.
I've searched around but did not find a answer. I am so surprised that no one has this type of requirement before.
The closest i found is 'background'. But that means i can have only one huge feature file with the content of 'A' as 'background' at the top, and rest of my test in the same file. I really do not want to do that.
Any suggestions?
By default, Cucumber features are run single thread in order by:
Alphabetically by feature file directory
Alphabetically by feature file name within directory
Scenario execution is then by order within the feature file.
So have your initialization feature in the first directory (alhpabetically) with a file name that sorts first (alphabetically) in that directory.
That being said it is generally a bad practice to require an execution order in your feature files. We run our feature files in parallel so order is meaningless. For Jenkins or TeamCity you could add a build step that executes the one feature file followed by a second build step that executes the rest of your feature files.
I have also a project, where we have a single feature file, that contains a very long scenario called Scenario: Test data with a lot of very long scenarios, like this:
Given the system knows about the following employees
|uuid|user-key|name|nickname|
|1|0101140000|Anna|annie|
... hundreds of lines like this follow ...
We see this long SystemKnows scenarios as quite valuable, so that our testers, Product Owner and developers have a baseline of what data are in the system. Our domain is quite complex, and we need this baseline of reference data for everyone to be able to understand the tests.
(These reference data become almost like well known personas, and are a shared team metaphore)
In the beginning, we were relying on the alphabetic naming convention, to have the AAA.feature to be run first.
Later, we discovered that this setup was brittle, and decided to use the following trick, inspired by the PageObject pattern:
Add a background with the single line Given(~'^I set test data for all feature files$')
In the step definition, have a factory to create the test data, and make sure inside the factore method, that it is only created once, like testFactory.createTestData()
In this way, you have both the convenience of expressing reference setup as a scenario, that enhances team communication, but you also have a stable test setup.
Hope this is helpful!
Agata
For a group of developers, all the differences are stored in a normal property file:
token1=some value
token2=9000
etc.
The 'tokens' are used in a series of XML files that reside in the normal src/main/resources directory. When Gradle copies these files into the build directory (and I don't know for sure what task that is), is there any opportunity to execute custom code? Specifically, I would like to have the token values from the property file substituted into the copy. Thus, the original copy remains untouched, but the version in the runtime has the desired values for the given developer.
Finally, I know this can done brute force with two or three steps that change the file after it is copied. I really want to know if there is an elegant way to do this in a single step.
After compilation, Gradle calls processResources task that copies the resources into the build directory. While copying resources, processResources can be configured to do the filtering (or possibly execute custom code by adding a doLast):
processResources {
filter org.apache.tools.ant.filters.ReplaceTokens, tokens: [
...
]
}
These two links can provide more help:
http://java.dzone.com/articles/resource-filtering-gradle
http://mrhaki.blogspot.in/2010/11/gradle-goodness-add-filtering-to.html
Im implementing NFS and almoste done but the RFC section 3.3.8 says this in its description:
mode
One of UNCHECKED, GUARDED, and EXCLUSIVE. UNCHECKED
means that the file should be created without checking
for the existence of a duplicate file in the same
directory. In this case, how.obj_attributes is a sattr3
describing the initial attributes for the file. GUARDED
specifies that the server should check for the presence
of a duplicate file before performing the create and
should fail the request with NFS3ERR_EXIST if a
duplicate file exists. If the file does not exist, the
request is performed as described for UNCHECKED.
EXCLUSIVE specifies that the server is to follow
exclusive creation semantics, using the verifier to
ensure exclusive creation of the target. No attributes
may be provided in this case, since the server may use
the target file metadata to store the createverf3
verifier.
so the question if UNCHECKED is the mode should i just set the length of the file to Zero or should i let the file be as it is? and if its a directory should i remove all the content?
I believe the idea of CREATE with UNCHECKED is to apply the semantics of good old Unix system call creat -- so, truncation of a file's existing contents (if any) is implied. However I cannot find this specified all that clearly in the docs (!).
Trying to CREATE an existing directory is an error in any case -- there's a separate MKDIR for that (in NFS 3, the same applies to special files, with MKNOD -- CREATE is now for regular, normal, plain good old files only!-)