cookbook files not copied to vagrant box

[cstewart87]

.kitchen.yml

---
driver:
  name: vagrant

platforms:
  - name: ubuntu-12.04

provisioner:
  name: chef_zero
  roles_path: roles
  client_rb:
    cookbook_path:
      - /tmp/kitchen/cookbooks/components
      - /tmp/kitchen/cookbooks/profiles

suites:
  - name: routerlb
    run_list:
      - 'role[routerlb]'
    attributes:

Section of log output

...
[2014-01-16T16:18:43+00:00] WARN: Cookbook 'vault_app' is empty or entirely chefignored at /tmp/kitchen/cookbooks/components/vault_app
[2014-01-16T16:18:43+00:00] WARN: Cookbook 'workstation' is empty or entirely chefignored at /tmp/kitchen/cookbooks/components/workstation
...

Addt'l info

• Using a chef repo.
• .kitchen.yml at root of repo.
• All cookbook directories are copied over, but no files
• test-kitchen v1.1.1

[sethvargo]

"or entirely chefignored"

Could you post your chefignore (if it exists)?

[adnichols]

@sethvargo Does test-kitchen care about the chefignore? My understanding was that it was completely ignored in favor of a glob pattern which can be overwritten in the kitchen yaml, which has me really curious about that message, maybe something specific to the vagrant plugin?

[fnichol]

Okay, I see what's going on here: the client_rb block only sets up client.rb on the remote instance. You still need to use the Berksfile, Cheffile, ./cookbooks (and ./site-cookbooks), ./metadata.rb cookbook detection fallback.

Looking at this part of the code with fresh eyes, it looks like we should add a cookbooks_path default_config so that you could set up something like:

---
provisioner:
  cookbooks_path: /other/cookbooks

or

---
provisioner:
  cookbooks_path:
    - /common/project/cookbooks/components
    - /common/project/cookbooks/profiles

If we had support for this, then all cookbooks would end up in /tmp/kitchen/cookbooks on the instances. Would that help?

In the meantime, assuming you don't already have a Berksfile around for this project you can specify cookbooks by path like:

site :opscode

components_dir = "/common/cookbooks/components"
profiles_dir = "/common/cookbooks/profiles"

Dir.entries(components_dir).select { |d| File.directory?(d) && !%w{. ..}.include?(d) }.each do |name|
  cookbook name, path: "#{components_dir}/#{name}"
end

Dir.entries(profiles_dir).select { |d| File.directory?(d) && !%w{. ..}.include?(d) }.each do |name|
  cookbook name, path: "#{profiles_dir}/#{name}"
end

[fnichol]

@adnichols And to clarify your question, no, Test Kitchen doesn't parse or chefignore on the workstation side.

[adnichols]

@fnichol So doesn't that message he's getting seem misleading? Or is that not coming from test-kitchen?

[fnichol]

@adnichols I'd agree it's totally misleading 😄 Unfortunetly, that's coming from chef-solo finding an empty directory for one of its cookbook_path entries. I found this out when trying to make Test Kitchen without any cookbooks at all (I needed to dummy a no-op cookbook to make chef-solo happy).

[cstewart87]

@fnichol The issue I had come across with my Berksfile was that it was not "correctly" determining dependencies, or at least not determining them the way I'd want to. Each cookbook still has its own Berksfile, but from this thread I noticed that Berkshelf doesn't resolve nested Berksfiles.

[sethvargo]

Closing, as this isn't really a bug in Test Kitchen. If anything, it's a bug in Chef Solo, but it's more than likely a miscommunication in documentation. @fnichol is going to work on adding those docs 😄