Bug #2856
Setting recursion depth with the recurse parameter is now deprecated, please use recurselimit
| Status: | Rejected | Start: | 11/25/2009 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Due date: | ||
| Assignee: | % Done: | 0% |
||
| Category: | file | |||
| Target version: | 0.25.2 | |||
| Affected version: | 0.25.1 | Branch: | ||
| Keywords: | ||||
| Votes: | 0 |
Description
I got this deprecation warning on a file resource that I am managing, which was like this:
file {
"/home/":
mode => 2755,
owner => root,
group => staff,
recurse => 1;
}
Ok, no problem, thanks for the deprecation warning. So I go an lookup the docs about how recurselimit should be, it says:
recurse: Whether and how deeply to do recursive management. Valid values are true, false, inf, remote. Values can match /^[0-9]+$/. recurselimit: How deeply to do recursive management. Values can match /^[0-9]+$/.
Ok, so that says to me that I should specify that I want to do recursion (what is remote?) and that I should set the recurselimit to be one to match my former behavior, so I turned my file resource above into this:
file {
"/home/":
mode => 2755,
owner => root,
group => staff,
recurse => true,
recurselimit => 1;
}
However, I am still getting this deprecation notice:
warning: /File[/home/]/recurse: Setting recursion depth with the recurse parameter is now deprecated, please use recurselimit
even though I am not setting the recursion depth with the recurse parameter. I’m not sure if the documentation is wrong here, or this warning is not very smart?
History
Updated by James Turnbull 9 months ago
- Status changed from Unreviewed to Investigating
- Assignee set to Markus Roberts
- Target version set to 0.25.2
Updated by Markus Roberts 9 months ago
- Status changed from Investigating to Needs more information
- Assignee changed from Markus Roberts to micah -
Micha —
I am unable to reproduce this on 0.25.1, and looking at the code I can’t see how it could happen (the warning in question is only generated if the value passed to recurse is numeric).
Can you shed any more light on the situation?
— Markus
Updated by Markus Roberts 9 months ago
This may actually be a duplicate of #2633 in disguise.
Updated by micah - 9 months ago
- Status changed from Needs more information to Rejected
Well, I was holding off on looking into this until I’d sorted out the other issues with my upgrade, and now that I turn back to this issue, I am not seeing the message any longer. I’m not sure why that is, my only thought is that perhaps one of the commits in the branch that you published to fix #2863 made this go away. Either than or there was something else funky going on.
I guess I would say that this should be closed, if you can’t replicate it, and I can’t either any longer… so I am going to change the status to Rejected, please feel free to change that if that isn’t the right status, or if you would like me to do some further investigation.