e.g. db[01:10:3]node-[01:10]
- to do this we split off at the first [...] set, getting the list
of hosts and then repeat until none left.
- also add an optional third parameter which contains the step. (Default: 1)
so range can be [01:10:2] -> 01 03 05 07 09
If someone has a " #" in a quoted var string, it
will interpret that as a comment and refuse to
load the inventory file due to an unbalanced
quote. Noisy failure > unexpected behavior.
Previously setting force=no caused copy to subversively
fail when target did not exist on remote host.
Caused by Runner._remote_md5 returning 1
when files don't exist, rather than 0.
PluginLoader._get_paths, as of 391fb98e, was only finding plug-ins that
were in a subdirectory of one of the basedirs (i.e. in a category
directory). For example, action_plugins/foo.py would never be loaded,
but action_plugins/bar/foo.py would work.
This makes it so that "uncategorized" plug-ins in the top level of a
directory such as action_plugins will be loaded, though plug-ins in a
"category" subdirectory will still be preferred. For example,
action_plugins/bar/foo.py would be preferred over action_plugins/foo.py.
If a variable was provided for an include, in either of these ways:
---
- hosts: all
tasks:
- include: included.yml param=www-data
- include: included.yml
vars:
param: www-data
and then that param was used as the value of sudo_user in the included
tasks:
---
- name: do something as a parameterized sudo_user
command: whoami
sudo: yes
sudo_user: $param
you would receive a "failed to parse: usage: sudo" error back and the
command would not execute.
This seemed to be due to a missing call to template.template somewhere,
because the final value being passed through ssh was still `$param`.
After some digging, the issue seems to instead have been a problem with
providing the wrong context to the template for expansion. Inside the
`Task` logic, it was passing `play.vars` as the context, where
`module_vars` seemed more appropriate. After replacing it, my test case
above ran without issue. There was a comment above suggesting that the
template call might be unnecessary, but removing it made the original
error return, since it is not getting escaped later down the line. I
removed the comment since it was inaccurate.
I tried to actually incorporate my test case above into the test suite
as a regression test, but was unable to figure out how to structure it.
The existing test infrastructure seemed to only be testing for correct
number of counts in things (ok vs. changed, etc.), without regard for
whether the content generated by the command is correct. If there is an
example of a test similar to this one (where I would want to check the
JSON generated to make sure sudo_user had been converted), please let me
know and I will be happy to submit an additional patch.
