test(map): standardise map.jinja verification

[myii]

PR progress checklist (to be filled in by reviewers)

• Changes to documentation are appropriate (or tick if not required)
• Changes to tests are appropriate (or tick if not required)
• Reviews completed

---

What type of PR is this?

Primary type

• [build] Changes related to the build system
• [chore] Changes to the build process or auxiliary tools and libraries such as documentation generation
• [ci] Changes to the continuous integration configuration
• [feat] A new feature
• [fix] A bug fix
• [perf] A code change that improves performance
• [refactor] A code change that neither fixes a bug nor adds a feature
• [revert] A change used to revert a previous commit
• [style] Changes that do not affect the meaning of the code (white-space, formatting, missing semi-colons, etc.)

Secondary type

• [docs] Documentation changes
• [test] Adding missing or correcting existing tests

Does this PR introduce a BREAKING CHANGE?

No.

Related issues and/or pull requests

UPDATE:

• Follows-on from test(map): verify map.jinja dump using _mapdata state #68
• Automated using feat(_mapdata): manage map.jinja verification myii/ssf-formula#281

#65 (comment)
saltstack-formulas/openssh-formula#193

Describe the changes you're proposing

Discussion in Slack: https://freenode.logbot.info/saltstack-formulas/20200826#c4886021-c4887283.

• https://docs.chef.io/inspec/resources/yaml/

Pillar / config required to test the proposed changes

Debug log showing how the proposed changes work

Documentation checklist

• Updated the README (e.g. Available states).
• Updated pillar.example.

Testing checklist

• Included in Kitchen (i.e. under state_top).
• Covered by new/existing tests (e.g. InSpec, Serverspec, etc.).
• Updated the relevant test pillar.

Additional context

[pull-assistant]

Best reviewed: commit by commit

---

Optimal code review plan

     test(_mapdata_spec): perform comparison using describe yaml instead

Powered by Pull Assistant. Last update 570730a ... 570730a. Read the comment docs.

[myii]

@daks Realised I could use it rather than introducing a top-level key:

• https://travis-ci.org/github/myii/sudoers-formula/jobs/721500088#L1686-L1722

Then it was a matter of figuring out how to grab the params, which I found here:

• YAML resource with symbol keys inspec/inspec#2036 (comment)
• yaml-Parser: Can't test hierarchical values inspec/inspec#3738 (comment)

[daks]

Good job @myii :) At a side note, I recently upgraded to Inspec4 and we use the inputs (https://docs.chef.io/inspec/inputs/) which may also be a solution to provide data to inspec. Not sure if it could be used instead of this solution and if that would be more or less convenient or powerful.

[myii]

Repurposed this PR with all of the standardisations worked out across the various formulas.

[myii]

Self-merging since tests only.

[saltstack-formulas-travis]

🎉 This PR is included in version 0.23.1 🎉

The release is available on GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀