Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

return format of publish.publish changed #5928

Closed
ahammond opened this issue Jul 3, 2013 · 9 comments
Closed

return format of publish.publish changed #5928

ahammond opened this issue Jul 3, 2013 · 9 comments
Assignees
Labels
Bug broken, incorrect, or confusing behavior severity-medium 3rd level, incorrect or bad functionality, confusing and lacks a work around
Milestone

Comments

@ahammond
Copy link
Contributor

ahammond commented Jul 3, 2013

When calling sudo salt-call publish.publish api01 grains.item datacenter I used to get

api01:
    rackspace

Following 0.16.0, I get

api01:
    ----------
    out:
        grains
    ret:
        ----------
        datacenter:
            rackspace
@ahammond
Copy link
Contributor Author

ahammond commented Jul 3, 2013

Ooooh, and it changes depending on what command I publish:

sudo salt-call publish.publish api01 network.ip_addrs

pre 0.16.0:

api01:
    - 10.177.219.117
    - 174.143.143.32

post 0.16.0:

api01:
    ----------
    ret:
        - 10.177.219.117
        - 174.143.143.32

@terminalmage
Copy link
Contributor

This looks to be a byproduct of some serialization changes. @thatch45, can you confirm, and if this is the case update the docstring(s) in the publish module to reflect the changes, to help clear up some of the confusion?

@ghost ghost assigned thatch45 Jul 9, 2013
@ahammond
Copy link
Contributor Author

@thatch any movement on this? It broke most of the states I have that use publish.publish. Well, all of them that use publish.publish for anything more than "get a list of servers that have this grain". Which is a shame since 0.16.0 fixed publish.publish enough that I could actually use it except for this.

@ahammond
Copy link
Contributor Author

So... should I be updating all my states to reflect this change in return format, or... is this (as it appears to me), a bug? I see the Expected Behavior label on this but would really like a confirmation one way or the other...

@terminalmage
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry @ahammond, @thatch45 has been traveling a lot and has been catching up on emails. I'll try to get ahold of him and bring this up.

@thatch45
Copy link
Contributor

I am really sorry I have not taken care of this yet, the output should not change, I will get this taken care of ASAP

@thatch45
Copy link
Contributor

@basepi, we need to get this into 0.16.1

@basepi
Copy link
Contributor

basepi commented Jul 24, 2013

Cherry-picked.

thatch45 added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 24, 2013
@basepi, this needs to be in 0.16.1
@ahammond
Copy link
Contributor Author

@thatch45 thanks man! I really appreciate getting this fixed and in!!! :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Bug broken, incorrect, or confusing behavior severity-medium 3rd level, incorrect or bad functionality, confusing and lacks a work around
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants