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

puppetlabs/apache: Require 8.x; switch apache ports from string to int #835

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Aug 10, 2022

Conversation

bdeferme
Copy link

@bdeferme bdeferme commented Aug 9, 2022

Pull Request (PR) description

Stop breaking the upstream apache rspecs.

This Pull Request (PR) fixes the following issues

Recently we started seeing:

Evaluation Error: Error while evaluating a Resource Statement, Apache::Vhost[xxx_nonssl]: parameter 'port' expects a value of type Undef, Array[Stdlib::Port = Integer[0, 65535]], or Stdlib::Port = Integer[0, 65535], got String (file: /repo/spec/fixtures/modules/zabbix/manifests/web.pp, line: 416) on node 022551739aa6.xxx

This should fix that.

@smortex smortex added the bug Something isn't working label Aug 9, 2022
Copy link
Member

@smortex smortex left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wow, this module is quite broken at least on the CI side 😱

That PR looks right as far as I am concerned.

@bastelfreak bastelfreak changed the title Stop breaking upstream apache rspec puppetlabs/apache: Require 8.x; switch apache ports from string to int Aug 10, 2022
@bastelfreak bastelfreak added backwards-incompatible and removed bug Something isn't working labels Aug 10, 2022
@bastelfreak bastelfreak merged commit e233bc3 into voxpupuli:master Aug 10, 2022
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
},
{
"name": "puppetlabs/apache",
"version_requirement": ">= 1.6.0 < 7.0.0"
"version_requirement": ">= 8.0.0 < 9.0.0"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It wasn't needed to change the lower bound so strict. This can cause problems for users who haven't updated all their yet. The old versions accepted integers just fine.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I must agree that the lower bound is quite aggressive 😄

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants