Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

haproxy addons #62

Closed
wants to merge 6 commits into from
Closed

haproxy addons #62

wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

cosmosified
Copy link

these aren't clean. but if anyone wants to at least use them they work

DOCUMENTATION = """
---
module: pfsense_haproxy_frontend
version_added: "2.10"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should be 0.6.0 at the moment.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yep i made this over a year ago and never did a pr. client got back to me an dnow i'm having to get it to work again. i'll fix that.

#!/usr/bin/python
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-

# Copyright: (c) 2021 Chris Morton, cosmo@cosmo.2y.net
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Might want to update the year.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

@cosmosified
Copy link
Author

thats neat earlier wheni pusehd /created the pr it didn't run the builds. now i can see the failures

@opoplawski
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for the contribution. However in addition to fixing the checks, I would want to see some unit tests as well for merging this.

@opoplawski
Copy link
Contributor

thats neat earlier wheni pusehd /created the pr it didn't run the builds. now i can see the failures

Yeah, I have to approve the test runs manually.

@cosmosified
Copy link
Author

Thanks for the contribution. However in addition to fixing the checks, I would want to see some unit tests as well for merging this.

yeah i figured as much. i pushed it up anyway for others to use. the tests came from actually implementing it. i'll see if can find time to follow how you have done tests and add some.

@opoplawski
Copy link
Contributor

I would encourage you to create a topic branch for PRs instead of using master.

Copy link
Contributor

@opoplawski opoplawski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please fix the tests. Thanks.

@@ -140,3 +140,4 @@ def parse_interface(self, interface, fail=True, with_virtual=True):
if fail:
self.module.fail_json(msg='%s is not a valid interface' % (interface))
return None

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Drop the blank line, though I suspect the sanity test will flag this as well.

Comment on lines +585 to +586


Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This seems like a mistake

@opoplawski opoplawski added the enhancement New feature or request label Dec 23, 2023
@opoplawski opoplawski added this to the 0.6.0 milestone Dec 23, 2023
@opoplawski opoplawski removed this from the 0.6.0 milestone Jan 7, 2024
@opoplawski
Copy link
Contributor

Also as a heads up, I'm likely going to move the haproxy stuff to it's own collections.

@cosmosified
Copy link
Author

ok i haven' yhad a chance at all to look at what is required to get this merged. i will try this week.
Will you move the backend ha-proxy things as well? is the idea to have seaprate collections for each package that could be installed/configured for pfsense??
thanks
cosmo

@cosmosified
Copy link
Author

I would encourage you to create a topic branch for PRs instead of using master.

hmm. i usually just create PRS from my local branch/feature branch to develop or main. are you suggesting that i do a pr from my fork branch to the saem branch on your fork? (ie the topic branch?) i ahven't done that before and apologize for the immediate ignorance on this. i will research this as well. thanks

@opoplawski
Copy link
Contributor

hmm. i usually just create PRS from my local branch/feature branch to develop or main. are you suggesting that i do a pr from my fork branch to the saem branch on your fork? (ie the topic branch?) i ahven't done that before and apologize for the immediate ignorance on this. i will research this as well. thanks

You filed a PR from the master branch of your fork. You should create a new branch in your fork, say haproxy and make a PR from that. That way you can work on multiple things at once.

@opoplawski
Copy link
Contributor

Will you move the backend ha-proxy things as well? is the idea to have seaprate collections for each package that could be installed/configured for pfsense??

Yup, that's the plan.

@cosmosified
Copy link
Author

hmm. i usually just create PRS from my local branch/feature branch to develop or main. are you suggesting that i do a pr from my fork branch to the saem branch on your fork? (ie the topic branch?) i ahven't done that before and apologize for the immediate ignorance on this. i will research this as well. thanks

You filed a PR from the master branch of your fork. You should create a new branch in your fork, say haproxy and make a PR from that. That way you can work on multiple things at once.

yeah. i had it on a feature branch, merged that into my master, then requsted the pr back to yours. so my bad. thanks.

@opoplawski
Copy link
Contributor

Okay, I've setup https://github.com/pfsensible/haproxy so please submit your PR there. Thanks.

@opoplawski
Copy link
Contributor

Moved to pfsensible/haproxy#1

@opoplawski opoplawski closed this Jan 16, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants