Bump deprecation version to Sodium, update docs for module state#41708
Conversation
|
@rallytime, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @isbm, @thatch45 and @terminalmage to be potential reviewers. |
|
Thanks @rallytime |
707fe7d to
382130c
Compare
|
@thatch45 BTW, you requested to deprecate this the other day, because you never liked the previous syntax of the |
|
The only thing that seems like we had docstring update this regard lost in merges (again?), where it should say @rallytime since you've already PR'ed this, maybe un-comment the deprecation and simply remove "x" character from the docstring example?
|
|
I guess the issue is that I think we had some miss communication along the way as we continually morphed what this was intended to do, no no harm or foul here of course :) just trying to figure out the best solution. I know how the deprecation systems work but the issue is that we are firing a deprecation warning that looks like the function is deprecated when we are trying to deprecate old syntax. |
|
Almost there. Except that the only one syntax at a time works: i.e. you can have either implementation. The policy Hence the deprecation warning of the syntax. In my eyes, this PR do not need to remove the deprecation, but needs to fix the doc string that we do not have any |
|
Go Go Jenkins! |
|
Ok, I see now that I miss understood a few things originally. Since this is going to mandate that users change their states (which I hate to do) I think that we should move the deprecation out much further, to |
I also added a couple of blank lines to the code-block references. The docs weren't rendering these sections because of the missing blank lines.
|
@thatch45 I completely agree to get it right, if something missed. However, let's drop away the What I understood is the following:
The rest would be nice if you re-phrase it once again. 😉 @rallytime Yep. Separate PR definitely. I can take care of it, but better if @thatch45 end my list of TODOs (above). |
|
ok, I think we are on the same page here, the only thing I would still think would be a good idea would be to make it easier to use the new syntax by allowing something like a flag in the state or an alternative function so there is an easy migration path that lines up with the state execution rather than the minion operation. |
|
Ok, I updated the documentation to not refer to From my perspective, this PR is finished and @isbm can add a new PR to the new deprecation utilities that he added some time ago for @thatch45's suggestion of:
Do I have that all understood correctly? Am I missing anything? |
|
Yes, this should be good to go, thanks @rallytime ! |
The flag in the state is actually an interesting idea. And I would rather add all that to everywhere. Something like my_foo:
use_superseded:
- module.run
module.run:
zypper.remove
- vim
- vim-dataThe state above would run a new version of the Hmm, let me think about it! 😉 |
|
@isbm We really need to get this into today to tag the RC. Any chance you can look at it and let us know if you're OK with us putting this in as-is? |
|
I am ok with putting this in as is for the RC since to complete the goals for it as is we really only need to update some docs to make them a little clearer |
|
Merged per @thatch45 |
|
@cachedout yes. 😉 It is 0:10 in Germany at the moment... 😆 But yes, this PR goes as is, I will add such discussed above functionality anyway since it is very important. |
|
@isbm Just so you are aware, we are tagging the RC very soon. Likely in the next twenty-four to forty-eight hours. |
|
@meaksh see above. RUN! |
|
@isbm We'll need them ASAP, likely mid-morning our time tomorrow if possible (MST). Please email me if you don't think that's possible. Thanks. :] |
|
@cachedout "them" — what exactly? The #41856 is going to be fixed ASAP now. Anything else till mid-morning MST? |
At the request of @thatch45, this deprecation warning is being removed.
@isbm - It appears this change might need some more work before the deprecation warning is officially issued. @thatch45 can you comment with some more details?
References PR #39891