Detect install type via install path #4856
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Clinton Wolfe <clintoncwolfe@gmail.com>
clintoncwolfe
added
Type: New Feature
lib/inspec/utils/install_context.rb
Outdated
| def source_install? | ||
| # These are a couple of examples of dirs removed during packaging | ||
| %w{habitat test}.all? do |devdir| | ||
| Dir.exist?("#{src_root}/#{devdir}") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I honestly didn't know this method existed... Usually we use File.directory?.
| end | ||
|
|
||
| def rubygem_install? | ||
| !!src_root.match(%r{gems/inspec-\d+\.\d+\.\d+}) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mmm... vendor for bundler stuff? I'm thinking of the caching we use on BK.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I may need this explained to me.
When vendored, Bundler makes a directory vendor/cache full of gems - but the gems are not yet installed/expanded. Presumably when Bundler / Rubygems activates a gem it then installs the gem somewhere? So... wouldn't the above regex work?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think when vendored, they're installed under vendor as well... Our BK "bundle install" now takes <20s because we've untarred the vendor directory from cache.
| end | ||
|
|
||
| def chef_workstation_install? | ||
| !!(src_root.start_with?("/opt/chef-workstation") || src_root.start_with?("C:/opscode/chef-workstation")) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We don't really need true/false results, do we? Is this just for testing?
Signed-off-by: Clinton Wolfe <clintoncwolfe@gmail.com>
…v check for docker mode Signed-off-by: Clinton Wolfe <clintoncwolfe@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Clinton Wolfe <clintoncwolfe@gmail.com>
|
|
||
| should_be_true = ["#{test_expected_to_be_true}_install?".tr("-", "_").to_sym] | ||
| should_be_true += [:rubygem_install?] if also_rubygem | ||
| should_be_true.each { |m| expect(Inspec.method(m).call).must_equal true } | ||
| should_be_true.each { |m| expect(Inspec.send(m)).must_equal true } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How do you debug when all it says isExpected true, got false ?
Compare to Expected Inspec to be docker (these names aren't exactly adjectives... so it's a little clunky)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As I described above, your suggestion is not an equivalent test. We are testing predicates with expected boolean results, not referencing a method on a module.
When a test fails, it's easy to see which one - I've forced a failure here:
Inspec::InstallContextHelpers::when it looks like a Habitat installation#test_0001_should properly detect a habitat install [/Users/cwolfe/sandbox/inspec/inspec-telemetry-2/test/unit/utils/install_context_test.rb:53]:
Expected: false
Actual: true
I do wish I had a better expectation - perhaps one that could take a custom message, in which case I could provide user context. But this is not worthwhile at this point; it's a simple matter to add a pry statement should it ever break.
Signed-off-by: Clinton Wolfe <clintoncwolfe@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Clinton Wolfe <clintoncwolfe@gmail.com>
|
Code Climate has analyzed commit 73b3336 and detected 13 issues on this pull request. Here's the issue category breakdown:
View more on Code Climate. |
Signed-off-by: Clinton Wolfe clintoncwolfe@gmail.com
Description
Provides several new predicates and one classification method that guess at how InSpec was installed. Possible values include "chef-workstation", "chefdk", "docker", "habitat", "omnibus", "rubygem", and "source".
A unit test file is provided. This would be very impractical to test functionally, but I got the values in the test file (and in the implementation) by manually running each of the different scenarios. That said, I'm sure this could be easily fooled.
Related Issue
Closes #4585
Types of changes
Checklist: