Don't remove cookbook paths, just add to list berkshelf cookbook path

[le0pard]

Don't remove cookbook paths, just add to list berkshelf cookbook path.

The problem what I can have also own directories with cookbooks:

config.vm.provision :chef_solo do |chef|
    chef.cookbooks_path = ["site-cookbooks", "cookbooks"]
end

berkshelf should add own directory to this list (shouldn't remove my list).

[reset]

It's a known issue right now that you can't manipulate the cookbooks_path configuration value, but it was a conscious choice.

The problem is that the value of cookbooks_path contains ./cookbooks by default. If any directories are not present which the configuration specifies, then the Vagrant run will fail.

The suggested way to operate with Berkshelf is to NOT have a "cookbooks" directory at all.

[le0pard]

Thanks, @reset . But I also need site-cookbooks directory with my custom cookbooks. This is standart directory for Chef Solo - http://matschaffer.github.com/knife-solo/. And right now it is not work without this fix.

[le0pard]

And also I set this folders, so I should deside have I "cookbooks" folders or doesn't on my mashine. If I don't have such folder I can write:

chef.cookbooks_path = ["site-cookbooks"]

And its very easy. In berkshelf-vagrant, which installed by "vagrant plugin" and run even if you don't have berkshelf in your project user can fix this problem only by manual editing this file in "~/.vagrant.d" directory (or just remove "berkshelf-vagrant" for valid workflow).

[le0pard]

I also added new option "disabled" to berkshelf-vagrant. For now:

Vagrant.configure("2") do |config|
  config.vm.box = "rwpreise64"
  config.berkshelf.disabled = true
end

Will work without any error with installed berkshelf-vagrant and project, which not use berkshelf.

If you wish I can push this change as separate pull request.

[mconigliaro]

If you want to pull in cookbooks from your local cookbooks directory, you can just add something like this to your Berksfile:

Dir[File.join(File.expand_path('site-cookbooks', File.dirname(__FILE__)), '*')].select { |obj| File.directory?(obj) }.each do |path|
  cookbook File.basename(path), path: path
end

[tmatilai]

You can also use metadata to fetch also all dependencies of your own cookbooks. E.g.:

Dir.glob(File.expand_path('../site-cookbooks/*', __FILE__)).each do |path|
  metadata :path => path
end

Actually this seems to be so common pattern for me that I was thinking if Berkshelf could support it natively. Maybe cookbook_path "site-cookbooks" or something? If @RiotGames thinks it would be a good idea I can even try to implement it.

[ivey]

@tmatilai The Berkshelf way is somewhat antithetical to cookbooks/site-cookbooks, so my initial reaction is that that should be a plugin and not in Berkshelf, and that I'd love to spend 10 minutes in chat convincing you to give up site-cookbooks. Worth having the discussion on adding this as a feature in RiotGames/berkshelf though. (I like @mconigliaro's better, personally, since it uses cookbook and not metadata)

[ivey]

@le0pard as @reset mentioned, the suggested way to operate with Berkshelf is without a "cookbooks" or "site-cookbooks" directory. As a workaround, you can disable the plugin with config.berkshelf.enabled = false and do berks install --path cookbooks or use one of the hacks suggested.

I'm going to close this, but if people feel strongly that we're wrong on this, please feel free to re-open.

Also, happy to discuss in IRC anytime.

[tmatilai]

@ivey heh, I might have exaggerated a bit. =)
Definitely I prefer separate cookbook repos, although due to historical reasons and lack of time that is not always the case.

But the case where I still mostly create site-cookbooks are projects that spin up and provision a server for one time use. Or something that is a better fit for chef-solo anyway. In the same repository I have setup for local testing with Vagrant and "the real thing" with knife-solo. Normally these projects have one or a couple of cookbooks that are specific to that project and thus I feel it is more efficient to develop with tight integration.

[MasseGuillaume]

you can manage it like that.

`cookbook "artifact", path: "/Users/reset/code/artifact-cookbook"``

I think appending is more intuitive

[timruffles]

"It's a known issue right now that you can't manipulate the cookbooks_path configuration value, but it was a conscious choice."

So I'd suggest at least a warning message if people do set the path? Not great to break a lot of very standard chef setups, especially with loads of people moving from vagrant v1 and v2.

[v-yarotsky]

I second that warning thing, as this behaviour was totally unexpected for me. Also, a note in the readme and on http://berkshelf.com/ would be quite helpful.

[chino]

I think everyone is wasting collective cycles with the lack of a clear warning message and/or documentation.

[reset]

Pull requests welcomed on that warning message