monkey-patch match_manifests to not load init.pp when not necessary

[kjetilho]

When loading a class, Puppet::Module::match_manifests is used to list candidate filenames. To maintain backwards compatibility, it will return init.pp for the module first in the list, so that a class may be declared outside autoload namespace (Puppet bug #4220).

Normally, this does not cause any problems, but if pre_condition is used to make a simplified version of the top class in your module, Puppet will complain about a duplicate declaration.

  describe "baseconfig::logging" do
    let(:pre_condition) { [
     'class baseconfig($enable_filebeat=false) { }',
     'include baseconfig',
    ] }

This results in an error like this:

error during compilation: Class 'baseconfig' is already defined (line: 2); cannot redefine (file: /home/kjetilho/src/baseconfig/spec/fixtures/modules/baseconfig/manifests/init.pp, line: 6) on node ranger.ms.redpill-linpro.com

The patch changes the logic so that it removes init.pp from the beginning of the list if there are other files in the list. This will break code which puts the class foo::bar in foo/manifests/init.pp and has a file foo/manifests/bar.pp in the project, but I believe such code thoroughly deserves to break.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.06%) to 85.469% when pulling 3431ba627f4d04909d7104278a9468fef0f71ecf on kjetilho:avoid_autoload_init_pp into e586247b9a066f83bbed6caae96074265fb9f0cd on rodjek:master.

[kjetilho]

the Travis CI failure seems to be a problem in the bleeding edge Puppet gem, not related to my patch. how can I rerun the check?

[rodjek]

@kjetilho Can you add a test case for this?

[kjetilho]

hmm, not sure how to do this. do you mean the basic Ruby behaviour of the method (in spec/unit/monkey_patches_spec.rb) or the puppet test cases?

I will note that

• include sysctl::common serves as a test that my patch doesn't break existing behaviour (as the class is defined in ./spec/fixtures/modules/sysctl/manifests/init.pp)
• ./spec/fixtures/modules/escape/manifests/def.pp can be used to construct a breaking test with existing code:

  describe 'escape::def' do
  let (:pre_condition) do [ "class escape() {}" ] end
  end

  I assume that you will prefer a new "module" for specific tests anyhow?

[kjetilho]

ah, you cherry-picked it, thanks! well, there's my suggested test case for it, I guess you can cherry-pick that, too, if it is the kind of testing you wanted.