fix(resources): modify names to match template-formula's

javierbertoli commented 3 years ago

PR progress checklist (to be filled in by reviewers)

[ ] Changes to documentation are appropriate (or tick if not required)
[ ] Changes to tests are appropriate (or tick if not required)
[ ] Reviews completed

What type of PR is this?

Primary type

[ ] [build] Changes related to the build system
[ ] [chore] Changes to the build process or auxiliary tools and libraries such as documentation generation
[ ] [ci] Changes to the continuous integration configuration
[ ] [feat] A new feature
[X] [fix] A bug fix
[ ] [perf] A code change that improves performance
[ ] [refactor] A code change that neither fixes a bug nor adds a feature
[ ] [revert] A change used to revert a previous commit
[ ] [style] Changes that do not affect the meaning of the code (white-space, formatting, missing semi-colons, etc.)

Secondary type

[ ] [docs] Documentation changes
[ ] [test] Adding missing or correcting existing tests

Does this PR introduce a `BREAKING CHANGE`?

No, but will break dependencies to this formula resources's IDs being used in other formulas.

Related issues and/or pull requests

Should fix #119

Describe the changes you're proposing

Modified the resources IDs in the state files to follow the pattern proposed in the template-formula

Pillar / config required to test the proposed changes

Debug log showing how the proposed changes work

Documentation checklist

[ ] Updated the README (e.g. Available states).
[ ] Updated pillar.example.

Testing checklist

[ ] Included in Kitchen (i.e. under state_top).
[X] Covered by new/existing tests (e.g. InSpec, Serverspec, etc.).
[ ] Updated the relevant test pillar.

Additional context

javierbertoli commented 3 years ago

@baby-gnu I agree, modified the message.

I just was not sure if external dependencies on this formula (while the formula's functionality remained the same), was a reason enough to mark it as a BREAKING CHANGE.

But I noticed we did the same in the template-formula so makes sense to mark it as such. :yum:

myii commented 3 years ago

@javierbertoli The tests aren't running because pre-commit is failing (due to a salt-lint violation):

https://gitlab.com/saltstack-formulas/postfix-formula/-/jobs/1098452788

Please amend the commit to fix that, so that the CI continues to work.

However, I've manually started all of the jobs and the good news is that they're passing:

https://gitlab.com/saltstack-formulas/postfix-formula/-/pipelines/270561100

@baby-gnu I agree, modified the message.

I agree with the BREAKING CHANGE, so thank you for adding that. I've run a search for formulas which potentially may be affected by this change. These are all of the formulas mentioning postfix that aren't in this formula itself:

https://github.com/search?q=org%3Asaltstack-formulas+postfix+NOT+repo%3Asaltstack-formulas%2Fpostfix-formula&type=Code&ref=advsearch&l=&l=

It would be worth glancing over that list to see if there is anything obvious that would need to be fixed.

In terms of merging, we have a codeowner defined for this formula, so let's give @fzipi a chance to review this PR.

Thanks for finding the issue and supplying a prompt fix!

fzipi commented 3 years ago

LGTM (other that fixing the lint problem). Do you think we should clarify somewhere the naming format used from now on?

myii commented 3 years ago

@javierbertoli Merged. Thanks for the reviews, @baby-gnu @fzipi.

... Do you think we should clarify somewhere the naming format used from now on?

@javierbertoli What do you think about this issue? Cover it in another PR?

saltstack-formulas-travis commented 3 years ago

:tada: This PR is included in version 2.0.0 :tada:

The release is available on GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot :package::rocket:

saltstack-formulas / postfix-formula