Skip to content

Non namespaced ensure_packages function behaviour changed in 9.0.0 #1374

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

Closed
alexjfisher opened this issue Jun 15, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #1366
Closed

Non namespaced ensure_packages function behaviour changed in 9.0.0 #1374

alexjfisher opened this issue Jun 15, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #1366

Comments

@alexjfisher
Copy link
Collaborator

Describe the Bug

As originally discussed in #1365 the behaviour of ensure_packages is subtly different depending on whether the namespaced or non-namespaced version is called.

Expected Behavior

Package resources created by the function should be identically 'contained' whether they were created via the namespaced or non-namespaced function shim.

Additional Context

This issue supercedes #1365 where 2 separate issues are discussed and conflated.
A fix for this specific issue has been submitted in #1366

alexjfisher added a commit to alexjfisher/puppetlabs-stdlib that referenced this issue Jun 15, 2023
Make the `ensure_packages` shim an Internal function and pass scope to
the namespaced version so as to not change the behaviour of where
packages are contained.

When the function was first ported to the new API, it was discussed that
the existing behaviour might not be 'correct', but changing it would be
a breaking change that might have consequences for many users.

In namespacing the function in 9.0.0 we accidentally created a situation
where the namespaced version worked as before, but the non-namespaced
version, (the shim), now behaved differently.

Fixes puppetlabs#1374
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants