zone files should only be created or modified for master zones

[ghost]

The zone.pp class should not be allowed to create or modify the zone file for a slave zone at all. It should only manage master zone files.

I just added in a check to zone.pp so it only creates the concat type for master files, for all others it sets the concat to ensure => absent.

[solarkennedy]

Hmm, can you add some tests to cover these cases? As this manifest gets more complicated, we'll need test coverage to prevent regressions.

[ghost]

I can try. I have yet to actually write a test case for puppet :)

[solarkennedy]

I'll help you!

See the CONTRIBUTING.md for initial instructions.

Your file hint is spec/defines/dns__zone_spec.rb

It might look like something like this:

context "On a master zone" do
  let(:params) {{ :zone_type => 'master' }}
  it { should contain_concat__fragment ....
end

context "On a slave zone" do
  let(:params) {{ :zone_type => 'slave' }}
  it { should contain_concat__fragment(..).with_ensure('absent')
end

Tell me again though why on a slave zone we need this change? Certainly on a slave zone it shouldn't have an actual zone file, but it should have the configuration file fragment to declare the zone itself, right?

[ghost]

actually, I think I've got what I need working (including some fixes to the existing zone spec file).

The reason the change is needed is that the bind server manages the zone file for a slave zone by itself, and that zone file should never be modified other than by the bind server.

the change I made only means that the $zone_file_stage concat is set to ensure => absent for any non-master zone; it doesn't affect creation of the zone config.

[ghost]

... well, i did have things working, until i merged the latest changes back in so i could stop getting the some of the test file warnings and now all the requirements have changed and i need to rebuild ruby to a newer version on my system. oh well.

[ghost]

Woot. Figured out how to revert the merge, ran the tests (and ignored the warning about the invalid regexp), and everything passed. Checked in the latest changes. Do I need to do anything special like try to get all the changes in one commit? (This is also my first time contributing to an open source project like this)

[solarkennedy]

As far as I know, this is correct.
Thank you for going all the way and writing tests to ensure that this continues to work. (I can easily see the case statement being refactored, etc.)

[solarkennedy]

Thanks!

[solarkennedy]

Strange, this seemed to pass tests in the PR but now is failing on master...