On Tue, 2020-04-14 at 10:17 +0200, Erik Skultety wrote:
On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 12:28:50PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-04-09 at 06:23 +0200, Erik Skultety wrote:
> > +++ b/guests/playbooks/update/tasks/gitlab.yml
> > +- name: Make {{ gitlab_runner_config_dir }} world readable
> > + file:
> > + path: '{{ gitlab_runner_config_dir }}'
> > + mode: '0755'
> > +
> > +- name: Make {{ gitlab_runner_config_dir }}/config.toml world readable
> > + file:
> > + path: '{{ gitlab_runner_config_dir }}/config.toml'
> > + mode: '0644'
>
> The message for these tasks is unnecessarily detailed: I'd just use
> something like
>
> Make gitlab-runner configuration readable
Okay, however...
> for both.
>
> Additionally, even though the gitlab user is going to be the only one
> on the system so it doesn't make much of a difference in practice, I
> think we should have config.toml
>
...here you suggest the following adjustment. I feel like the messages above
will then become confusing and misleading, since who are we making it readable
for? Well, only for the gitlab user, so I think a little more detail in them is
justifiable.
> owner: root
> group: gitlab
> mode: '0640'
So how about:
"Make gitlab-runner config dir readable" for the former and
"Make gitlab-runner config.toml owned by the gitlab group" for the latter
I still think that's an unnecessary amount of detail, and we have
plenty of existing examples in the repository such as
- name: Update installed packages
package:
name: fedora-gpg-keys
state: latest
disable_gpg_check: yes
when:
- os_name == 'Fedora'
- os_version == 'Rawhide'
- name: Update installed packages
command: '{{ package_manager }} update --refresh --exclude "kernel*"
-y'
args:
warn: no
when:
- os_name == 'Fedora'
- os_version == 'Rawhide'
- name: Update installed packages
command: '{{ package_manager }} update --disablerepo="*"
--enablerepo=fedora-rawhide-kernel-nodebug "kernel*" -y'
args:
warn: no
when:
- os_name == 'Fedora'
- os_version == 'Rawhide'
where we provide the high-level information as feedback to the user,
without going too much into detail - in this case, that we're
updating the system in three steps instead of a single one because
some packages require special handling.
But I don't want to hold up the series because of bikeshedding, so
if you are very keen on having the extra detail I'll take it as-is :)
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization