-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 44
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 "handle_stratified" support #160
Add "handle_stratified" support #160
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #160 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 86.47% 87.17% +0.69%
==========================================
Files 30 30
Lines 3690 3868 +178
Branches 673 559 -114
==========================================
+ Hits 3191 3372 +181
+ Misses 362 359 -3
Partials 137 137
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. |
Docs Build 📝This PR is closed and any previously published docsite has been unpublished. |
description: | ||
- TODO | ||
type: bool | ||
default: false |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How about instead allowing to specify which keys (for stratification) to consider, so that only entries for these keys are accepted by the module and that only entries for these keys are considered?
@phox142 Thanks so much for implementing this! Looking forward to seeing this merged soon! My use case are address lists - I have common ones on every router and I have router specific ones. At the moment, the specific ones would be removed on every playbook run. Thanks again! |
Any progress on this? Being able to manage address-lists with idempotence would be a big benefit. |
I created another PR with a more flexible approach (basically what I mentioning in https://github.com/ansible-collections/community.routeros/pull/160/files/0aaa34e0d71af860c83c379e9dcbd9bb338c863d#diff-b46a57970bad777c71fc3d869bef8246fd76e6ec947fb99012b34d1f0f78b130) in #305. |
@felixfontein awesome! Looking forward to it being merged 😃 |
@phox142 thanks for working on this! |
SUMMARY
The goal of this change is to permit to
handle_absent_entries=remove
andensure_order=True
to work on subset based onstratify_keys
For instance if the parameter
handle_stratified
is set toTrue
when working on firewall rules, only the rules in the samechain
will be affected. The other chains will not be adapted.ISSUE TYPE
COMPONENT NAME
api module