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

Throw an error rather than just logging for missing SLS, Fix #5998 #8028

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 22, 2013

Conversation

basepi
Copy link
Contributor

@basepi basepi commented Oct 22, 2013

Looking back at the arguments for and against (ref #5430), @cachedout and I decided that continuing without error in case of a missing SLS was much more dangerous and problematic than having to use the workaround defined in #5430. If an SLS is not found, an error will not be output and the staterun will abort.

basepi added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 22, 2013
Throw an error rather than just logging for missing SLS, Fix #5998
@basepi basepi merged commit 569096d into saltstack:develop Oct 22, 2013
@thatch45
Copy link
Contributor

What brought this up? I don't want a ton of our users' states to just start failing with the next upgrade! I would like to have discussed this one before merging.

@thatch45
Copy link
Contributor

@basepi, lets revert this for now and look into making a better solution. I would like to start displaying an errors out state in the return from the state run that this happened rather than failing hard like this

@thatch45
Copy link
Contributor

I revert my statement! This is in render_highstate and is evaluating the top file, not the include statement, this is the right approach, thanks for fixing this @basepi and @cachedout !

@basepi
Copy link
Contributor Author

basepi commented Oct 22, 2013

Yes, last time only one person complained about the change, and even had a workaround. But if states defined in top.sls don't exist, I can't imagine wanting to just ignore that problem and continue blindly.

@cachedout and I want to talk to you when you're in office about some changes that would expose more information to callers, such as the CLI, so we could display information like this more strategically.

You're right, though, I shouldn't have just merged this one. @cachedout and I had had an in-depth discussion about it and were very sure about the change, but I didn't think about the fact that you weren't involved at all! I'll be more careful in the future.

@thatch45
Copy link
Contributor

no worries, I over reacted, this is good code

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.

2 participants