I am very new to ruby and was trying to understand some code when I got stuck at this snippet:
directory "test_dir" do
action :create
recursive true
end
I tried googling directory class but was unsuccessful. I found a class Dir but its not the same. I see that intuitively this snippet should create a new directory and name it test_dir but I do not want to assume things and move forward.
EDIT
This was a part of a chef-recipe which is used to launch a particular task. For the purposes of launching, it needs to create a directory and download some jars to it. There is an execute method below which goes like this:
execute 'deploy' do
action :nothing
# ignore exit status of storm kill command
command <<-EOH
set -e
storm kill #{name} -w 1 || true
sleep 3
storm jar #{points to the jar}
EOH
end
Sorry I have to be a bit obfuscated as some of the things are not open sourced.
It is the Directory resource of the Chef framework. (DSL stands for domain-specific language. Ruby is well suited for them.)
It's the Chef internal DSL for Directory management. Read more here: http://wiki.opscode.com/display/chef/Resources#Resources-Directory
PS: The recursive true tells it to create the folder much like mkdir -p.
The snippet you pasted is not really enough information to go on (need context; where is the snippet from?)
That said directory looks more like a method than a class. First, it's lowercased and classes are CamelCased.
If it's a method, it's defined somewhere within the application. Have you tried something like this:
grep -r "def directory" ./ or
grep -r "directory" ./| grep "def"
If not in the application itself, it would be defined in one of the application's dependencies (grep -r "..." $GEM_HOME/gems instead)
directory is not a class, it is a method. I do not know what module it is a part of, but that snippet is about equivalent to this:
Kernel.directory.call("test_dir",lambda {action :create; recursive true})
That snippet uses some gem that adds a directory method to the Kernel object.
As others have mentioned, it is part of the directory management DSL Chef. A DSL is a set of methods integrated into the Kernel object; because of the very flexible method calling syntax of Ruby, method calls can look a lot like language keywords. That makes task specific commands (Domain Specific Languages: DSL) look very nice in Ruby; easy to use and flexible. Thus gems that add DSLs are very common.
Related
I have a simple chef cookbook and all it does is it sets the MOTD on a CentOS machine. It takes the content of the /tmp/mymotd.txt and turns it into the MOTD.
I also have a simple ruby script (a full-fledged ruby script) that simply reads the text from the web-server and puts in into the /tmp/mymotd.txt.
My questions are:
how do I run this ruby script from within the cookbook?
how do I pass some parameters to the script (e.g. the address of the web-server)
Thanks a lot beforehand.
Ad 1.
You can use libraries directory in scripts to place there your ruby script and declare it in a module. Example:
# includes
module MODULE_NAME
# here some code using your script
# Example function
def example_function (text)
# some code
end
end
You can use then
include MODULE_NAME
in your recipe to import those functions and just use it like
example_function(something)
What's good - you can use there also Chef functions and resources.
IMPORTANT INFO: Just remember that Chef has 2 compilation phases. First will be all of Ruby code, second all of Chef resources. This means, that you have to remember priority of code. I won't write here more info about it, since you haven't asked for this, but if you want, you can find it here.
Ad 2.
You can do this in several ways, but it seems to me, that the best option for you would be to use environments. You can find more info in here. Basically, you can set up environment for script before it will run - this way you can define some variables you would use later.
Hope this helps.
I have to maintain a Ruby script, which requires some libs I don't have locally and which won't work in my environment. Nevertheless I want to spec some methods in this script so that I can change them easily.
Is there an option to stub some of the require statements in the script I want to test so that it can be loaded by rspec and the spec can be executed within my environment?
Example (old_script.rb):
require "incompatible_lib"
class Script
def some_other_stuff
...
end
def add(a,b)
a+b
end
end
How can I write a test to check the add function without splitting the "old_Script.rb" file and without providing the incompatible_lib I don't have?
Instead of stubbing require which is "inherited" from Kernel, you could do this:
Create a dummy incompatible_lib.rb file somewhere that is not in your $LOAD_PATH. I.e., if this is a Ruby application (not Rails), don't put it in lib/ nor spec/.
You can do this a number of ways, but I'll tell you one method: in your spec file which tests Script, modify $LOAD_PATH to include the parent directory of your dummy incompatible_lib.rb.
Ordering is very important -- next you will include script.rb (the file which defines Script).
This will get you around the issue and allow you test test the add method.
Once you've successfully tested Script, I would highly recommend refactoring it so that you don't have to do this technique, which is a hack, IMHO.
Thanks, I also thought about the option of adding the files, but finally hacked the require itself within the test case:
module Kernel
alias :old_require :require
def require(path)
old_require(path) unless LIBS_TO_SKIP.include?(path)
end
end
I know that this is an ugly hack but as this is legacy code executed on a modified ruby compiler I can't easily get these libs running and it's sufficient to let me test my modifications...
I just started using chef and don't know much about ruby.
I have problems understanding the language-syntax used in recipes.
Say, I create a directory in a cookbook in recipes/default.rb like:
directory "/home/test/mydir" do
owner "test"
mode "0755"
action :create
recursive true
end
I assume this is part of a valid ruby script. What do lines like owner "test" mean? Is this a function call, a variable assignment or something else entirely?
Chef is written in Ruby and makes an extensive use of Ruby ability to design custom DSL. Almost every chef configuration file is written with a Ruby-based DSL.
This means that in order to use chef effectively you should be familiar with the basic of Ruby syntax including
Grammar
Data types (the main difference compared to other languages are Symbols)
Blocks
You don't need to know a lot about metaprogramming in Ruby.
The case of the code you posted is an excellent example of a Ruby based DSL. Let me explain it a little bit.
# Call the method directory passing the path and a block
# containing some code to be evaluated
directory "/home/test/mydir" do
# chown the directory to the test user
owner "test"
# set the permissions to 0555
mode "0755"
# create the directory if it does not exists
action :create
# equivalent of -p flag in the mkdir
recursive true
end
Blocks are a convenient way to specify a group of operations (in this case create, set permissions, etc) to be evaluated in a single context (in this case in the context of that path).
Let's break it down.
directory "/home/test/mydir" do
...
end
You are just calling a global method defined by Chef called directory, passing one argument "/home/test/mydir", and a block (everything between the do and end).
This block is probably excecuted in a special scope created by Chef in which all of the options (owner, mode, action, etc.) are method.
i would like to show you my use case and then discuss possible solutions:
Problem A:
i have 2 recipes, "a" and "b".. "a" installs some program on my file system (say at "/usr/local/bin/stuff.sh" and recipe "b" needs to run this and do something with the output.
so recipe "a" looks something like:
execute "echo 'echo stuff' > /usr/local/bin/stuff.sh"
(the script just echo(es) "stuff" to stdout)
and recipe "b" looks something like:
include_recipe "a"
var=`/usr/local/bin/stuff.sh`
(note the backquotes, var should contain stuff)
and now i need to do something with it, for instance create a user with this username. so at script "b" i add
user "#{node[:var]}"
As it happens, this doesn't work.. apparently chef runs everything that is not a resource and only then runs the resources so as soon as i run the script chef complains that it cannot compile because it first tries to run the "var=..." line at recipe "b" and fails because the "execute ..." at recipe a did not run yet and so the "stuff.sh" script does not exist yet.
Needless to say, this is extremely annoying as it breaks the "Chef runs everything in order from top to bottom" that i was promised when i started using it.
However, i am not very picky so i started looking for alternative solutions to this problem, so:
Problem B: i've run across the idea of "ruby_block". apparently, this is a resource so it will be evaluated along with the other resources. I said ok, then i'd like to create the script, get the output in a "ruby_block" and then pass it to "user". so recipe "b" now looks something like:
include_recipe "a"
ruby_block "a_block" do
block do
node.default[:var] = `/usr/local/bin/stuff.sh`
end
end
user "#{node[:var]}"
However, as it turns out the variable (var) was not passed from "ruby_block" to "user" and it remains empty. No matter what juggling i've tried to do with it i failed (or maybe i just didn't find the correct juggling method)
To the chef/ruby masters around: How do i solve Problem A? How do i solve Problem B?
You have already solved problem A with the Ruby block.
Now you have to solve problem B with a similar approach:
ruby_block "create user" do
block do
user = Chef::Resource::User.new(node[:var], run_context)
user.shell '/bin/bash' # Set parameters using this syntax
user.run_action :create
user.run_action :manage # Run multiple actions (if needed) by declaring them sequentially
end
end
You could also solve problem A by creating the file during the compile phase:
execute "echo 'echo stuff' > /usr/local/bin/stuff.sh" do
action :nothing
end.run_action(:run)
If following this course of action, make sure that:
/usr/local/bin exist during Chef's compile phase;
Either:
stuff.sh is executable; OR
Execute it through a shell (e.g.: var=`sh /usr/local/bin/stuff.sh`
The modern way to do this is to use a custom resource:
in cookbooks/create_script/resources/create_script.rb
provides :create_script
unified_mode true
property :script_name, :name_property: true
action :run do
execute "creating #{script_name}" do
command "echo 'echo stuff' > #{script_name}"
not_if { File.exist?(script_name) }
end
end
Then in recipe code:
create_script "/usr/local/bin/stuff.sh"
For the second case as written I'd avoid the use of a node variable entirely:
script_location = "/usr/local/bin/stuff.sh"
create_script script_location
# note: the user resources takes a username not a file path so the example is a bit
# strange, but that is the way the question was asked.
user script_location
If you need to move it into an attribute and call it from different recipes then there's no need for ruby_blocks or lazy:
some cookbook's attributes/default.rb file (or a policyfile, etc):
default['script_location'] = "/usr/local/bin/stuff.sh"
in recipe code or other custom resources:
create_script node['script_location']
user node['script_location']
There's no need to lazy things or use ruby_block using this approach.
There are actually a few ways to solve the issue that you're having.
The first way is to avoid the scope issues you're having in the passed blocks and do something like ths.
include_recipe "a"
this = self
ruby_block "a_block" do
block do
this.user `/usr/local/bin/stuff.sh`
end
end
Assuming that you plan on only using this once, that would work great. But if you're legitimately needing to store a variable on the node for other uses you can rely on the lazy call inside ruby to do a little work around of the issue.
include_recipe "a"
ruby_block "a_block" do
block do
node.default[:var] = `/usr/local/bin/stuff.sh`.strip
end
end
user do
username lazy { "#{node[:var]}" }
end
You'll quickly notice with Chef that it has an override for all default assumptions for cases just like this.
[I'm just starting with Ruby, but "no question is ever too newbie," so I trudge onwards...]
Every tutorial and book I see goes from Ruby with the interactive shell to Ruby on Rails. I'm not doing Rails (yet), but I don't want to use the interactive shell. I have a class file (first_class.rb) and a Main (main.rb). If I run the main.rb, I of course get the uninitialized constant FirstClass. How do I tell ruby about the first_class.rb?
The easiest way is to put them both in the same file.
However you can also use require, e.g.:
require 'first_class'
You can also use autoload as follows:
autoload :FirstClass, 'first_class'
This code will automatically load first_class.rb as soon as FirstClass is used. Note, however, that the current implementations of autoload are not thread safe (see http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/174036).
There's another point worth noting: you wouldn't typically use a main file in ruby. If you're writing a command line tool, standard practice would be to place the tool in a bin subdirectory. For normal one-off scripts the main idiom is:
if __FILE__ == $0
# main does here
# `__FILE__` contains the name of the file the statement is contained in
# `$0` contains the name of the script called by the interpreter
#
# if the file was `required`, i.e. is being used as a library
# the code isn't executed.
# if the file is being passed as an argument to the interpreter, it is.
end