Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Provide RFC for Salt SSH for TU systems #93
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Provide RFC for Salt SSH for TU systems #93
Changes from 2 commits
b8ad5cd
b24047e
2277266
e64cf27
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This means that they cannot be mixed together in the same state? So any OOT state should be defined in it's own sls file and executed with state.apply, and any states that needs to modify IAT should be in a different sls file and executed with transational_update.apply.
Do we have any state that modifies files/data in both locations?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Correct. Users must specify whether they want to run a state inside, or outside of a transaction, and execute either
state.apply
, ortransactional_update.apply
.This is not possible, at least not without some significant modifications to Salt at a quite low level. Salt does not give us control at a more fine-grained level than the whole execution.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Instead of "not supporting" salt ssh on TU systems, could we instead suggest using
transactional_update
execution module? Or can we even provide a transactional_update state which would wrap TU execution module?i.e. instead of
pkg.installed
suggest usingtransaction_pkg.installed
?Of course this would open another can of worms like:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure I understand here. This RFC is about requiring the users to use the
state
ortransactional_update
modules based on their needs:So if I'm not misunderstanding, we already suggest that user use the
transactional_update
when necessary. This leads us to changing how Uyuni/SUMA deals with TU minions as well.Regarding:
It would work for some changes, e.g. changes that do not require other files, like the
pkg.installed
you mention. It would not work for changes that require anything on the filesystem, e.g.:sls
filesfile
command that copies a file to a different location, etc.This would require the same synchronization mechanism as we provide in this RFC.
I can add it to alternative solutions with the caveat that we'd support only a subset of Uyuni's functionality (and of course, we'd also have to re-do how we treat TU minions on Uyuni's side since neither
state.apply
nortransactional_update.apply
would work)