The Puppet Labs Issue Tracker has Moved:

Bug #8590

Poor wording, IMO (audit messages)

Added by Jeff Blaine over 3 years ago. Updated over 3 years ago.

Status:InvestigatingStart date:07/22/2011
Priority:LowDue date:
Assignee:-% Done:


Target version:-
Affected Puppet version: Branch:

We've Moved!

Ticket tracking is now hosted in JIRA:


The wording here:

“audit change: previously recorded value owner root has been changed to owner daemon”

could be clearer, IMO. The “audit change” is ambiguous. Wait, audit changed something? The “has been changed” is also a little more misleading than it needs to be.

How about:

“audit discrepancy: owner daemon exists where owner root expected”


“audit exception: owner daemon exists where owner root expected”


#1 Updated by Anonymous over 3 years ago

Nick, Randall, this seems a reasonable suggestion, to me?

#2 Updated by Nick Fagerlund over 3 years ago

Those are close! I definitely agree that the current one is dodgy.

This is actually kind of hard to describe, because audit in puppet agent doesn’t maintain a known good state to compare against; it just hollers every time the attribute changes state. So calling it a discrepancy or exception seems odd, because we don’t really have any concept of approval or even expectancy. We just report events.

Maybe something like:

Change noted in audited attribute: owner is daemon (was root)

Am I overthinking this?

#3 Updated by Anonymous over 3 years ago

Nick, I think you’re right about this, and I like your suggestion (up to and including the parentheses, which are a nice way of calling out the previous value).

#4 Updated by Adrien Thebo over 3 years ago

  • Status changed from Unreviewed to Investigating

Also available in: Atom PDF