Add user to group at a later point in puppet - puppet

I have a user resource in a module that gets used by several different nodes. Now I want to add this user to a group but only in one specific node. Is there a good solution for this?
Module looks something like this:
class testmodule::basics {
user { 'testuser':
ensure => present,
home => '/home/testuser',
managehome => true,
}
}
Node manifest:
node 'testnode' {
include testmodule::basics
# here I would like to add the user to a group
# something like this (obviously does not work because of duplicate resource)
user { 'testuser':
groups => 'testgroup',
membership => 'minimum',
}
}

You have several alternatives, split among several general categories.
Category 1 - use external data to communicate which secondary groups the user should have. The particular datum might be a flag to indicate whether the user should be in the secondary group, or it might be an actual array of the appropriate secondary groups. You might then obtain it either by directly calling the lookup() or hiera() function, depending on which version of Puppet you are using, or by creating a class parameter for it, and using automatic data binding.
Example:
modules/testmodule/manifests/basics.pp:
class testmodule::basics($secondary_groups = []) {
user { 'testuser':
ensure => present,
home => '/home/testuser',
managehome => true,
groups => $secondary_groups
}
}
data/nodes/special.my.com.yaml:
---
testmodule::basics::secondary_groups:
- testgroup
Category 2 - Set up a class parameter to receive the distinguishing data, just as in one of the category 1 options, and feed the data in via an external node classifier (ENC), instead of external data. Setting up and enabling an ENC has much broader implications than feeding data to a single class, however, so I don't really recommend this unless you are already using or planning to use an ENC.
Category 3 - Perform a resource parameter override where needed. This could be almost a drop-in change to your example manifest, though it would be better to put the override in a separate class than to perform it directly in the node block. In a class that inherits from testmodule::basics, you can use resource parameter override syntax, like so:
modules/testmodule/manifests/basics/special.pp:
class testmodule::basics::special inherits testmodule::basics {
User['testuser'] {
groups => 'testgroup'
}
}
If you want to perform such an override in a node block or in an unrelated class, however, then you need to do it via a collector:
node 'testnode' {
include testmodule::basics
User<title == 'testuser'> {
groups => 'testgroup'
}
}
To two varieties of overrides have some subtle differences beyond the scopes in which they may be used, so do read the docs for more information.

Related

Micrometer - Add default prefix in metric name

In micrometer, we can create a new gauge doing something like
myMeterRegistry.gauge("my_metric", 69);
See the code here https://github.com/micrometer-metrics/micrometer/blob/master/micrometer-core/src/main/java/io/micrometer/core/instrument/MeterRegistry.java#L468
Would be possible to include a "prefix" name by default for my myMeterRegistry object?
Manually, it should like:
myeterRegistry.gauge("myprefix_my_metric", 69);
My goal is that every developer that creates a gauge metric in my application does not have to take care of adding the "myprefix_" at the beginning of the metric name
A MeterFilter would let you do that (but don't!):
new MeterFilter() {
#Override
public Meter.Id map(Meter.Id id) {
return id.withName("myprefix." + id.getName());
}
}
However a common prefix is typically a smell of an incorrect dimensionality. Usually users try to add a region, host, or the application's name as a prefix. Those are better provided as tags since then you can aggregate across systems and use common dashboards.
The commonTags approach is recommended:
registry.config().commonTags("team", "myteam", "region", "us-east-1");
For hierarchical meter registries, tags will be included in the name as a prefix.

Puppet cron job -- ensure files exist

I'm trying to set up a Puppet cron job with the following structure:
file { '/usr/local/sbin/file.py':
mode => '0755',
source => 'puppet:///modules/file.py',
require => File['/usr/local/sbin']
}
cron { "cronjob":
require => "ALL_THE_FILES_ABOVE"
command => "...command_to_run_script..."
minute => '*/1'
}
All of the above is in one file run_script.pp. I'm wondering how I can code the require => "ALL_THE_FILES_ABOVE" part.
Thanks!
Based on the information provided in your question, I am going to make the assumption that the contents of run_script.pp is many file resources and the listed cron resource. You state that you want the cron resource there to require all of the file resources in that class. Based on this, here is a clean and efficient solution.
There are a few complicated/advanced ways to arrive at a clean and efficient solution, but the easiest to understand is to use a resource default: https://puppet.com/docs/puppet/5.3/lang_defaults.html
With this, we can establish attribute/value pair defaults for all file resources contained in that scope. This would make it easier to use the before metaparameter on the file resources instead: https://puppet.com/docs/puppet/5.3/metaparameter.html#before
This simplifies the solution to a one-liner in your class:
File { before => Cron['cronjob'] }
Note there will be a caveat to this method, which is that if you are declaring, requiring, or containing a class within this manifest, then this default could be expanded to that "area of effect" and cause a circular dependency. In that case, you should use a per-expression resource default attribute: https://puppet.com/docs/puppet/5.3/lang_resources_advanced.html#per-expression-default-attributes
You can use a multiple require
file{'path/foo':}
file{'path/bar':}
file{'~/foobar':
require => [ File['path/foo'], File['path/bar'] ]
}
or you can use the ordering arrow
-> (ordering arrow; a hyphen and a greater-than sign) — Applies the resource on the left before the resource on the right.
file{'path/foo':} ->
file{'path/bar':} ->
file{'~/foobar':}
Here is more information about relationships and ordering in Puppet

define keystone_user from openstack/puppet-keystone via hiera?

I am using https://github.com/openstack/puppet-keystone to set up an OpenStack management/controller node. I need to add the 'glance' user to keystone. I want to try and do as much as I can in my hiera data so my manifest will be simple.
Here is my manifest:
class kilo2_keystone {
include controller_ceph
include keystone
include keystone::config
include keystone::user
# keystone_user { 'glance':
# ensure => present,
# }
}
The commented out section works, but I want to be able to do include keystone::user and supply the parameters in my hiera data like so:
keystone::user:
"%{hiera('glance_admin_user')}":
ensure: present
But when I run puppet agent -t on my node I get this error:
Could not find class ::keystone::user
The commented-out code declares a resource of type keystone_user, not a class. Presumably its type, keystone_user, is provided by the puppet-keystone module. The include() family of functions are for declaring classes, not resources, so they are inapplicable to keystone_user.
There is more than one way you could proceed. If you don't anticipate wanting to anything more complicated than declaring one or more keystone_users present, then I'd recommend giving your class a parameter for the user name(s), to which you can assign a value via Hiera:
class kilo2_keystone($usernames = []) {
include controller_ceph
include keystone
include keystone::config
keystone_user { $usernames:
ensure => present,
}
}
On the other hand, if you want to be able to declare multiple users, each with its own set of attributes, then the create_resources() function is probably the path of least resistance. You still want to parameterize your class so that it gets the data from Hiera via automated data binding, but now you want the data to be structured differently, as described in the create_resources() docs: as a hash mapping resource titles (usernames, in your case) to inner hashes of resource parameters to corresponding values.
For example, your class might look like this:
class kilo2_keystone($userdata = {}) {
include controller_ceph
include keystone
include keystone::config
create_resources('keystone_user', $userdata)
}
The corresponding data for this class might look like this:
kilo2_keystone::userdata:
glance:
ensure: present
enabled: true
another_user:
ensure: absent
Note also that you are placing your kilo2_keystone class in the top scope. You really ought to put it in a module and assign it to that module's namespace. The latter would look like this:
class mymodule::kilo2_keystone($userdata = {}) {
# ...
}

Changing class variable in node declaration in Puppet

I am trying to create a "template" for all my servers. I have 2 configurations. An NTP client (which is taken care of in the baseclass class. I want to create an override specific for the NTP servers by declaring something specific in the node declaration. Something like "baseclass::ntp:restrict => true,". Or alternatively, how would I change one of the already declared variable from baseclass::ntp?
Does anyone have any ideas host to do this?
This is what I have so far:
templates.pp
class baseclass {
include defaultusers
include sudoers
include issue
class { ntp:
ensure => running,
servers => ['ntpserver1.host.com',
'ntpserver2.host.com',],
autoupdate => false,
}
}
nodes.pp
node default {
include baseclass
}
node "ntpserver1.host.com" inherits default {
<some code here to declare new variable in baseclass::ntp>
<some code here to change existing variable, such as "ensure">
}
You have run smack into the problem with parameterized classes: they don't support overrides. They should, but due to various problems with the order in which things are initialized in Puppet, you can't override parameters to classes. Once you set them, you're done. This is different from defines, where overriding parameters works as you expect. There's an open bug about this that a bunch of us have voted up and are watching, but there appears to be little progress.
Given that, my recommendation would be to recast your parameterized ntp class as a define instead, because a define will work exactly as you want. Change the class to something like:
define ntp($servers, $autoupdate = false, $ensure = 'running') {
# ... put code from class here ...
}
and then change baseclass to:
ntp { $fqdn:
servers => [ 'ntpserver1.host.com',
'ntpserver2.host.com',],
}
You will have to change the class structure to add a new class, since you can't inherit from a class in a node, so change your node to:
node "ntpserver1.host.com" inherits default {
include hosts::ntpserver1
}
or however you want to name your per-host configuration classes. Then, in that class, you can do exactly what you expect to be able to do:
class hosts::ntpserver1 inherits baseclass {
Ntp["$fqdn"] { ensure => 'stopped' }
}
I know this seems like a huge runaround, particularly if you're used to doing a bunch of stuff inside nodes (which don't participate in the class inheritance tree). But without being able to override parameters to classes, there doesn't seem to be a good alternative. (We manage 500+ nodes and about 100 completely separate service definitions, with hundreds of modules and a huge amount of variety between hosts, including per-host overrides, using this method and it works extremely well.)
TL,DR summary: You can't override class parameters. Once you've passed a parameter to a class in Puppet, you're done. You can override define parameters. Therefore, anything you want to override is better written as a define than a class. However, remember that override hierarchies means that you have to put the core of your node definition in a class, since only classes can inherit from and override another class. Therefore, if you use overrides heavily, get into the habit of having your node definitions be trivial (just including a class that does all the work) so that your classes can inherit from base classes and override the parameters to defines.
I accepted rra's answer, but I found a solution that worked for me a little better. It's a slight hack, I suppose:
template.pp
class baseclass ($ntprestrict = 'false') {
include defaultusers
include sudoers
include issue
class { ntp:
ensure => running,
servers => ['ntpserver1.host.com',
'ntpserver2.host.com',],
autoupdate => false,
restrict => $ntprestrict,
}
}
nodes.pp
node "ntpserver1.host.com" {
class { baseclass: ntprestrict => 'true' }
}
node "client.host.com" {
class { baseclass: ntprestrict => 'false' }
}

How to pass node specific information to class in puppet?

I want to pass node specific information to a class, which then could evaluate it for specific purposes. Actually this question consists of three parts.
Say, I have the following node:
node 'devbox' {
$serverType = 'something'
include someClass
someOtherClass { 'someOtherClass':
par1 => 'value',
}
targetClass { 'nodeInformationShouldGoHere': }
}
Inside targetClass, I want to evaluate if serverType, someClass or someOtherClass is set (e.g. with if-else). My questions now are:
Is setting and passing the variable suitable in puppet for this?
or should I use tags (as the classes are automatically tagged for this node)?
Are their further approaches and what are limitations to above ones (e.g. do they work for resource types?)?
You can absolutely use puppet this way. Read over the documentation for Parameterized Classes and see if that meets your needs.

Resources