search

ansistrano / deploy

Ansible role to deploy scripting applications like PHP, Python, Ruby, etc. in a capistrano style
https://ansistrano.com
MIT License
2.37k stars 343 forks source link

Defining explicit targets for shared folders #369

Closed grzegorznowak closed 3 years ago

grzegorznowak commented 3 years ago

reading through the tasks I don't think the use case we need is possible yet, so how about if we extend the notion of asistrano_shared_path to something along the lines of :

  ansistrano_shared_paths:
      - src: ExplicitShare  # relative to shared folder
        dest: some/path/ExplicitShare # relative to the current deploy folder. 
      - DefaultShare # works as per current, for backwards compatibility (the src and dest are not mandatory)

so as a result the DefaultShare will get symlinked in the release's root (the default behaviour now), whereas the ExplicitShare will have the symlink put in the some/path subfolder of the release.

If that's possible using the Ansistrano's core then please let me know. I might be missing something, but if not I'd happily PR it back your way as we want to migrate from our 10 year old phing-based deploy process and the repo is already a good starting point.

gitmood[bot] commented 3 years ago

Thanks for opening this issue. Once closed, we will ask you and to all participants to provide open feedback about your experience. Thanks in advance!

ricardclau commented 3 years ago

That's not possible in Ansistrano as it lead to multiple issues (you can probably find them in the docs) but nothing is preventing you from doing the required symlinks in a deployment hook

gitmood[bot] commented 3 years ago

Thank you all for helping resolve this issue. In order to encourage more contributions like yours, we want you all to share how was your experience contributing to this project. Please click on the following link to provide anonymous feedback: http://gitmood.app/app/feedback/13999853-28cd-44d3-9734-9220f2fdc359

grzegorznowak commented 3 years ago

That sounds like an unnecessary duplication of already (almost) existing feature. Do you have a link to the exact issue it introduced ? If that's technical, there's hardly a thing Ansible couldn't solve.