[WIP] monit: deprecate support for monit <= 5.18

[russoz]

SUMMARY

The code has special provisions for monit 5.18 and older - and that version was released in 2016.

ISSUE TYPE

• Feature Pull Request

COMPONENT NAME

monit

[ansibullbot]

cc @brian-brazil @dstoflet @snopoke
click here for bot help

[russoz]

It looks like this is going to take longer than I had foreseen, so may be bump the deprecation to 14.0.0 instead of the 13.0.0 I am proposing.

I am thinking maybe in rewriting (some, if not all of) the unit tests using uthelper first, then coming back to this PR to make the adjustments. @snopoke WDYT?

@snopoke despite our conversation in #11245 (comment), it occurred to me that there is no specific feature in the module supporting versions of monit, except for that -B parameter that seems to have been added after monit 5.18. In that case, I think we can strongly recommend that a more recent monit is used, but there is nothing preventing them from using it with 5.19, 5.20, etc..., so I see no point in make a claim that we are not enforcing - we could enforce it, but I see little benefit in doing so, I reckon it would be perceived as us just being unnecessarily picky.

All that means that I am probably going slower on this thing.

[snopoke]

It looks like this is going to take longer than I had foreseen, so may be bump the deprecation to 14.0.0 instead of the 13.0.0 I am proposing.

I am thinking maybe in rewriting (some, if not all of) the unit tests using uthelper first, then coming back to this PR to make the adjustments. @snopoke WDYT?

@snopoke despite our conversation in #11245 (comment), it occurred to me that there is no specific feature in the module supporting versions of monit, except for that -B parameter that seems to have been added after monit 5.18. In that case, I think we can strongly recommend that a more recent monit is used, but there is nothing preventing them from using it with 5.19, 5.20, etc..., so I see no point in make a claim that we are not enforcing - we could enforce it, but I see little benefit in doing so, I reckon it would be perceived as us just being unnecessarily picky.

All that means that I am probably going slower on this thing.

That all sounds reasonable to me. I wasn't aware of UTHelper, looks like it would be useful.