[WIP] Add a foreman subnet type #111
Conversation
|
This is still a very WIP, untested, will eat your dog and cat so be warned. Currently I'm just pushing new commits when I've added some code and will squash when done, including tests. And feedback is welcome. |
| end | ||
|
|
||
| def exists? | ||
| id != nil |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nitpick use .nil? or just !!subnet
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please do nitpick. I think I copied this from the smartproxy provider and am still very new to ruby.
|
Looks sane to me. |
| end | ||
|
|
||
| newproperty(:dhcp_proxy) do | ||
| desc 'The DHCP proxy that serves this subnet. Should be the name of the smartproxy.' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could also accept the foreman_smartproxy registration resource here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. Maybe it would be even better to only accept that resource to abstract away the mapping. Same thing for domains, since you need to domain to be present as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
True, that would work well. The user doesn't need to do the auto-registration either, they could just define a foreman_smartproxy resource without the ensure property.
By adding a foreman subnet type, you can ensure a subnet exists in your foreman instance. TODO: [ ] Allow clearing of domains [ ] Flush all values at once
|
Rebased, done some testing. Still work in progress, but the basics work. |
|
@ekohl what would it take to use create_resource (or the like) to create the subnet in foreman once the installer is running with dhcp? bonus points for setting up the relationship between the subnet and the proxy. thanks! |
|
@ohadlevy that works. What needs to be done is flushing the resource so it does one update API call instead of one per parameter. This fixes the bug where you can't assign |
|
@ohadlevy and I also see in the commit message that clearing the related domain does not work. |
|
This seems as part of something we are trying to create in https://github.com/theforeman/staypuft-installer (see hooks/lib/provisioning_seeder.rb). Does it make sense to somehow merge our efforts? Is it a benefit to have this as puppet type? |
|
@ares I'd say so. We already have the smartproxy type so it'd make sense to have all foreman types. |
|
Replaced by #280 |
By adding a foreman subnet type, you can ensure a subnet exists in your
foreman instance.