Puppet » Puppet Acceptance

I feel like something is wrong if the differences are that significant.

The only real difference we should see is that port 8140 is in use by the Passenger setup.

If you need to run webrick tests, just do them on another port?

There is a significant difference in PE vs FOSS in regards Puppet Master server; and yes, something is “wrong”. What is “wrong” depends on your perspective: either it is wrong that we have two Puppet Masters that function completely differently, or it was wrong to write a core method in the test harness library that is FOSS specific and makes not attempt to account for PE Masters.

This code snippet is a perfect example of why some tests will never port from FOSS to PE:

  def with_master_running_on(host, arg='--daemonize', &block)
    on host, puppet_master('--configprint pidfile')
    pidfile = stdout.chomp
    on host, puppet_master(arg)
    poll_master_until(host, :start)
    master_started = true
    yield if block
  ensure
    if master_started
      on host, "kill $(cat #{pidfile})"
      poll_master_until(host, :stop)
    end
  end

Unfortunately, from an acceptance testing perspective, Puppet has become harder to test, no easier. This needs to be addressed and not by just by writing tests code that works every Puppet permutation.

It’s important to note that that example above is not a FOSS vs PE difference.

It’s a webrick vs Passenger difference, regardless of whether you’re using FOSS or PE.

If the majority of our master tests in the suite are relying upon using webrick rather than any other method, then we’re not testing the most common deployment patterns in the FOSS space.

NIgel, thanks for the input and the clarification.

The important thing to note here is that methods have been added that only interacte with the webrick server and completely fail on PE/non-webrick environments. These methods do not contain logic to at least try and detect what type of Puppet master to interact with. We should not add additional code that behaves similarly.