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

Windows Working Group agenda - 2019 #420

Open
dagwieers opened this issue Dec 28, 2018 · 36 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@dagwieers
Copy link
Member

commented Dec 28, 2018

Github windows issues Github windows PRs Windows agenda Windows pinboard

The Windows Working Group is focused on improving Ansible's management of Windows hosts. We meet every week on Tuesdays at 20:00 UTC (see ical)

More information related to the Windows Working Group is available at:
https://github.com/ansible/community/wiki/Windows

Feel free to add your questions to this ticket to be discussed during the upcoming meeting.

After being discussed, raised items are being updated, and after a month resolved items are being hidden from view (but remain accessible).

(Migrated from the previous agenda at #294)

@dagwieers

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Dec 28, 2018

New windows modules waiting for review/feedback:

Please review these tickets on a weekly basis (if there was new progress, otherwise add instructions to the owner how to continue).

@dagwieers

This comment was marked as outdated.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Dec 28, 2018

I would like to discuss and speed up these read-timeout and reconnection patches to WinRM and PSRP:

@it-praktyk

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link

commented Jan 15, 2019

Please add to the list of modules to review

@it-praktyk

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link

commented Jan 21, 2019

I would like to discuss

  • ansible/ansible#51032

    • does the win_ps_disk_facts should return information about disks initiated as dynamic?
    • does the win_ps_disk_facts should return information about disks those are members of storage pools members?

    IMHO, yes, for both.

  • ansible/ansible#50781 - I think that provided PR improves the documentation

EDIT: discussed at Jan 22 meeting, dynamic disk support would be good, discussed details of linking to existing setup docs

@jborean93

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jan 21, 2019

Talk about how we want to approach ansible/ansible#51063.

The decision was to make the check case insensitive but to add a warning saying this will change sometime in the future.

@jborean93

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jan 22, 2019

Whether we want to support scenarios like ansible/ansible#50133. This scenario is around disabling a resource without specifying some of the mandatory options we require when creating it.

If we do then it requires a bugfix otherwise we should update the documentation. This leads into some other modules where we have been mixed in how we handle this type of scenario.

EDIT: discussed at Jan 22 meeting; in general, if an irregular state change ends up requiring creation (eg, disabled), it should be a runtime error if the resource is missing and the necessary args to create are not specified, rather than always requiring the creation args to be specified on all state changes.

@jborean93

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jan 22, 2019

Talk about whether we want to include support for appx/msix in win_package or put that in it's own module ansible/ansible#50864.

The decision was to keep the PR as is and support appx/msix in win_package.

@dagwieers

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Jan 22, 2019

We have 14 "new" modules in the queue, some of these are in the queue for months with no activity. I think we need to bite the bullet and make a decision. Some of these modules would be better merged so they get some traction from users (as they may be too niche to expect more feedback as a PR)

Maybe it could also help us merge some modules faster if the contributor confirms he's planning to support the module actively onwards?

Update: We decided to cover these during the next Windows WG meeting on 2019-01-29.

@gundalow

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jan 22, 2019

Focusing on those that include tests would reward people that have tried to create a better PR, and hopefully motivate others. is:pr label:windows is:new_module label:test

@dagwieers

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Jan 22, 2019

@gundalow Most of these need special infrastructure for testing (i.e. IIS, RDS or MSSQL infra). That shouldn't be an obstacle for creating tests (and I am happy to see that almost all of them have tests!), but it makes it harder for testing/reviewing. And if these are niche functionality, we may be better off putting it in the hands of users (provided the contributor has tested it within his limits!).

PS I think we only accept modules that includes integration tests these days.

@dagwieers

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Feb 2, 2019

We have about one month to go before the upcoming Ansible v2.8 freeze.
Can we make a list of things we would like to see fixed/added before this time ?
And add these to the Ansible v2.8 project board ?

These are on my personal wishlist:

@tgadiev

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link

commented Feb 10, 2019

How about this one?
ansible/ansible#51986 - Add support checksum to module win_get_url
EDIT: discussed at Feb 12 WWG IRC meeting- proposed UI change to split checksum/checksum_algorithm`

@it-praktyk

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link

commented Feb 11, 2019

Can we discuss updating prerequisites under run of win_psmodule and win_psrepository ansible/ansible#50621 (comment)?
EDIT: discussed at Feb 12 WWG IRC, agreed to auto-update for now, maybe add paranoid flag later if people want it

@it-praktyk

This comment was marked as off-topic.

Copy link

commented Feb 11, 2019

ansible/ansible#51986 - Add support checksum to module win_get_url

The title of the pull request states that it's not ready. It's my understanding of WIP:.

Can you add integration tests for the new parameter?

@tgadiev

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link

commented Feb 18, 2019

ansible/ansible#51986 finalized. Is it ok to merge?

Edit: Going through the review process now

@it-praktyk

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link

commented Feb 18, 2019

Can we discuss win_psmodule ansible/ansible#50621?
I hope that all requested changes are implemented.

Edit: review in progress

@dagwieers

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Feb 26, 2019

I would like to discuss the parameter inconsistency between newline and newline_sequence detailed in ansible/ansible#52586 (comment).

Edit: Was discussed and suggested this be brought to the main Ansible meetings and decided there

@tgadiev

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link

commented Feb 26, 2019

I'd like to add ansible/ansible#51986
And also good point would be to talk about http integration tests.

Edit: the solution was to use the httptester framework we already have in place. This provides some static images that can be used for a checksum and doesn't require another binary/service to be installed saving time on CI.

@jborean93

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 5, 2019

Want to talk through our reasoning why https://github.com/ansible/ansible/blob/devel/test/sanity/pslint/settings.psd1#L3 has been ignored.

Edit: decided to add this back into the ruleset we have

@jborean93

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 19, 2019

I would like to talk about adding a custom rule to our pslint checks. The rule would be based on https://github.com/jborean93/PSSA-PSCustomUseLiteralPath and will automatically check for cmdlet calls where -Path was used instead of -LiteralPath.

Edit: decided to add this to the ruleset

@jhawkesworth

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Mar 19, 2019

I'd like to discuss if there are any last windows PRs that people want to try and get into 2.8
I'm interested in ansible/ansible#45693 and ansible/ansible#53362

Edit: will need to review win_nssm changes, win_xml is awaiting module author for the review

@smaslennikov

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link

commented Mar 22, 2019

Would it be possible to get ansible/ansible#53542 merged in for 2.8?

@chopraaa

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link

commented Mar 26, 2019

Can we try to get ansible/ansible#53925 merged in time for 2.8?

@nitzmahone

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 9, 2019

Discuss possible revert of ansible/ansible#53542 (change adds potentially unreasonable new requirements for domain join)
Edit: reverted

@ShachafGoldstein

This comment was marked as outdated.

Copy link

commented Apr 29, 2019

ansible/ansible#55862

the next phase will be the more complex errors that are more of a major change in names mainly

EDIT: moving forward toward merge on this one, will discuss future possible changes in WWG meetings or on PRs.

@jhawkesworth

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Apr 30, 2019

I'd like to discuss whether it is still too early to merge my win_xml changes ansible/ansible#53362 (I bumped the versions to 2.9 already)

EDIT: merged to devel for 2.9

@jhawkesworth

This comment was marked as outdated.

Copy link
Contributor

commented May 7, 2019

Note. No meeting 7th May 2019 due to RH summit.

@ShachafGoldstein

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented May 7, 2019

for next meeting

EDIT:

My Active PRs

Other's Active PRs (Mar 19+)

Inactive PRs

@kvprasoon

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link

commented May 14, 2019

Would like to discuss about: ansible/ansible#55109

Edit: Awaiting idempotency checks and doc fixes.

@ShachafGoldstein

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link

commented May 14, 2019

Edit: Decided to make the change

@ShachafGoldstein

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link

commented May 21, 2019

ansible/ansible#56712

Edit: Added comment onto the issue

@rnsc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented May 31, 2019

(it's about adding recovery settings in win_service)

@kvprasoon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 16, 2019

Related to win_pester. Not sure on attending the meeting. I'm in IST timezone and is quite impossible for me to attend as per my current work hrs...
ansible/ansible#57918

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.