Skip to content

Fix insync? method for array_matching => all#413

Merged
slippycheeze merged 1 commit intopuppetlabs:2.7.xfrom
stschulte:ticket/2.7.x/12197
Jan 26, 2012
Merged

Fix insync? method for array_matching => all#413
slippycheeze merged 1 commit intopuppetlabs:2.7.xfrom
stschulte:ticket/2.7.x/12197

Conversation

@stschulte
Copy link
Contributor

This reverts commit 48726b6.

Revert the commit to use the old insync? method. Revert the commit
due to the following different reasons:

  • the code does only work on ruby 1.9 as described in #12197
  • the insync? method does not work for array comparisons if
    the should array has more items than the is array
    because smallarray.zip(bigarray) truncates bigarray
  • it is currently not possible to overwrite just the property_match?
    method because the insync method will then raise an exception
    Could not evaluate: old and new mismatch!

While I guess there were good reasons behind the refactor of the
insync? method it is currently quicker to just revert the commit than
fixing the errors (and writing tests for it)

This reverts commit 48726b6.

Revert the commit to use the old insync? method. Revert the commit
due to the following different reasons:

* the code does only work on ruby 1.9 as described in #12197
* the insync? method does not work for array comparisons if
  the should array has more items than the is array
  because smallarray.zip(bigarray) truncates bigarray
* it is currently not possible to overwrite just the property_match?
  method because the insync method will then raise an exception
  Could not evaluate: old and new mismatch!

While I guess there were good reasons behind the refactor of the
insync? method it is currently quicker to just revert the commit than
fixing the errors (and writing tests for it)
slippycheeze added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 26, 2012
Fix insync? method for array_matching => all
@slippycheeze slippycheeze merged commit 6ba92c9 into puppetlabs:2.7.x Jan 26, 2012
@mmrobins
Copy link
Contributor

Wasn't this part of a larger changeset that included #2927 to support symbolic file modes? Do symbolic file modes not work now that this has been reverted? I'm actually somewhat surprised there were no test failures.

tdevelioglu pushed a commit to tdevelioglu/puppet that referenced this pull request Mar 29, 2016
melissa pushed a commit to melissa/puppet that referenced this pull request Mar 30, 2018
Revert "(PCP-270) Remove outsourced pthread dependency"
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants