(#16239) mock of facter :operatingsystem pending

[vrthra]

Previously, the pending for solaris was specified incorrectly resulting in the test being pending in all platforms.
This checkin removes the pending state, and ensures that the test runs on all platforms.

[joshcooper]

Since we stub Facter.stubs(:value).with(:operatingsystem).returns('Darwin') in the top-level before each block, we get an unexpected invocation when trying to return the real osfamily fact

 40) mount provider (integration) When initially mounted When there is an initial fstab entry When setting ensure => absent When setting options => journaled should leave the system in the unmounted state, without data in /etc/fstab
     Failure/Error: catalog.apply
     Mocha::ExpectationError:
       unexpected invocation: Facter.value(:osfamily)
       satisfied expectations:
       - allowed any number of times, not yet invoked: Signal.trap(any_parameters)
       - allowed any number of times, invoked 3 times: Puppet::Type::Mount::ProviderParsed.default_target(any_parameters)
       - allowed any number of times, invoked once: Facter.value(:operatingsystem)
       - allowed any number of times, not yet invoked: #.backup(any_parameters)
       - expected never, not yet invoked: #.err(any_parameters)
     # ./lib/puppet/provider/mount/parsed.rb:91:in `mountinstances'
     # ./lib/puppet/provider/mount/parsed.rb:77:in `prefetch'
     # ./lib/puppet/transaction.rb:284:in `prefetch'
     # ./lib/puppet/transaction.rb:272:in `prefetch_if_necessary'
     # ./lib/puppet/transaction.rb:376:in `traverse'
     # ./lib/puppet/transaction.rb:99:in `evaluate'
     # ./lib/puppet/resource/catalog.rb:144:in `apply'
     # ./spec/integration/provider/mount_spec.rb:79:in `run_in_catalog'
     # ./spec/integration/provider/mount_spec.rb:112

[vrthra]

@joshcooper updated the check by saving family.

[slippycheeze]

So, looking at the ticket I see that it is closed; @vrthra, is this still applicable?

[vrthra]

@daniel-pittman yes it is still applicable, this file was missed in the original checkin. Should I open another bug? or can I push it as maint?

[slippycheeze]

You should probably open a new bug covering whatever part of the original issue is still unresolved, and link the two together. That way people don't lose track of all the parts of solving the problem.

[vrthra]

@daniel-pittman updated with bug #16239