Always store the path in the label_to_path_map

[tbartelmess]

Otherwise the path won't be found next time the provider is asks for it.

https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/22458

[puppetcla]

Waiting for CLA signature by @tbartelmess

@tbartelmess - We require a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) for people who contribute to Puppet, but we have an easy click-through license with instructions, which is available at https://cla.puppetlabs.com/

Note: if your contribution is trivial and you think it may be exempt from the CLA, please post a short reply to this comment with details. http://docs.puppetlabs.com/community/trivial_patch_exemption.html

[puppetcla]

CLA signed by all contributors.

[adrienthebo]

Thank you very much for this contribution! Since this corrects a bug in existing behavior it should have tests to ensure that this behavior doesn't regress. Would you be willing to add a test case to make sure this the path is properly stored? For reference, the existing specs are at https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet/blob/master/spec/unit/provider/service/launchd_spec.rb and could be used as a reference for adding the new test.

[adrienthebo]

Also, if you would like any help with the tests I would be happy to lend a hand. If you would like to discuss this further, IRC would be one of the best ways to get ahold of me. I'm generally available on irc.freenode.net from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM in #puppet and #puppet-dev, and my nickname is finch.

[tbartelmess]

@adrienthebo I've added a unit test. However, I've noticed an other issue with the launchd provider in the jobsearch function:

When the provider once read the jobs, new jobs are ignored. I think it would make sense to re-read all plists in the case that the job was not found. Should I open a new ticket/pull-request or is it fine when I add it to this pull request

[adrienthebo]

Do you think that fixing the other issue would be a significant change, or only a minor revision to the existing code? If it's a non-trivial fix it would be best to open a new pull request for that.

[tbartelmess]

It's fairly trivial. See https://github.com/tbartelmess/puppet/compare/puppetlabs:master...d6033e4

[adrienthebo]

While the change does just extract existing behavior, it is a fairly big refactor. I think it would be best to get this change in and then work on the bug/refactor in a new pull request.

Before I merge this, could you squash the commits in this pull request down to a single commit and amend the commit to match our project standards?

Housekeeping - Commit Message

It would be good to have the commit message amended a little. The first line of the commit should have the issue number and a description of the problem or fix, and the body of the commit message should explain what is this existing behavior and how this change fixes it. We have a more complete explanation of this at https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#making-changes .

[adrienthebo]

summary: fixed up and merged into master in 15e81ed; this should be released in 3.4.0. Thanks for the contribution!

[djmitche]

gh-1914 is the refactor you're discussing; in fact, it supersedes this pull req.