add support for UCL ".include" macro

[fraenki]

This PR adds support for the UCL ".include" macro.

These hiera options...

rspamd::config:
  classifier-bayes:
    .include(try=true,priority=1,duplicate=merge): $LOCAL_CONFDIR/local.d/section.conf

...will result in the following rspamd configuration:

.include(try=true,priority=1,duplicate=merge) "$LOCAL_CONFDIR/local.d/section.conf"

[oxc]

Will it work properly for multiple includes? Are they usually all different on the left hand side?

[fraenki]

Will it work properly for multiple includes? Are they usually all different on the left hand side?

It will work as long as the left side is different (at least in Hiera). I think it will always be feasible to use a different priority to make it work:

rspamd::config:
  classifier-bayes:
    .include(try=true,priority=1,duplicate=merge): $LOCAL_CONFDIR/local.d/section.conf
    .include(try=true,priority=5,duplicate=merge): $LOCAL_CONFDIR/local.d/section5.conf

I'd favor full support for UCL macros, but I don't think there is enough interest – and this small addition gets the job done (for me). :)

[oxc]

Can I, out of curiosity, ask what your use case for this is?

[fraenki]

Can I, out of curiosity, ask what your use case for this is?

I need to include multiple rspamd "plugins". They provide their own config files, e.g. for rbl.conf and rbl_group.conf. And I want to use their unmodified files and still be able to provide my own rbl.conf. So I use the .include macro to include all 3rd-party files.

[oxc]

I kind of would prefer a syntax like this:

rspamd::config:
  classifier-bayes:
    .include:
      - args:
          try: true
          priority: 1
          duplicate: merge:
        value: "$LOCAL_CONFDIR/local.d/section.conf"
      - args:
          try: true
          priority: 2
          duplicate: merge:
        value: "$LOCAL_CONFDIR/local.d/section5.conf"

Should not be that hard to implement, I believe. What do you think?

[fraenki]

This sure looks much better. 👍 I don't like my ugly quick'n'dirty effort, but I don't have enough time to work on a more sophisticated solution. :-/

[oxc]

I know. That's why I'm inclined to approve the PR 😂 Give me a couple of days to see what I can do, otherwise I will merge your changes.

[oxc]

My proposed syntax should be compatible with/distinguishable from yours, so we can also just add it later 🙃

[fraenki]

I have no objections 😁