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

Missing Task Metadata validation in CI test. #372

Closed
ragnarkon opened this issue Dec 4, 2017 · 2 comments
Closed

Missing Task Metadata validation in CI test. #372

ragnarkon opened this issue Dec 4, 2017 · 2 comments
Labels

Comments

@ragnarkon
Copy link

ragnarkon commented Dec 4, 2017

It appears as though that the Travis CI file on generated modules doesn't include a step to validate the JSON metadata for Puppet Tasks. There is no rake task available for Puppet Task validation, and utilizing bundle exec metadata-json-lint tasks/*.json isn't a valid alternative other than as a much-less-than-perfect check to ensure the JSON syntax itself is correct.

It would be beneficial to add a rake task that allows for validation of Puppet Tasks.

(Perhaps it is appropriate for this issue to be filed under the puppetlabs_spec_helper project instead?)

@scotje
Copy link
Contributor

scotje commented Apr 5, 2018

We are currently working on updating the generated Travis and Appveyor configs to use PDK to test the module instead of the rake tasks, at which point the task metadata will be checked by pdk validate.

This work is tracked in JIRA at https://tickets.puppetlabs.com/browse/PDK-709

@sanfrancrisko
Copy link
Contributor

sanfrancrisko commented Apr 14, 2021

I feel PDK-709 is discussing the implementation of pdk validate in to CI configs, but this issue is a request to add support for validating tasks.

Since this was raised, we now have task validation, but it could certainly be extended in functionality.

I will be trying to determine the best way forward for PDK-709, but if there's any limitations or feature requests for the pdk validate tasks command, please feel free to raise a Feature Request discussion similar to #1064 @ragnarkon.

We're trying to get back to better engagement with the community on what is wanted from the PDK via Discussions

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants