I use Salt environments to provide each of my team mates the ability to develop
and test their Salt changes. And I've found that when we run this formula from
our environments against our salt-master, comments in some files change. For us
this represents an unwanted and unplanned change. I understand the intention -
to identify how or why the file changed, but I firmly believe that we should
be able to run highstsate with test=True and only see intended changes. Here's
an example:
ID: salt-cloud-providers
Function: file.recurse
Name: /etc/salt/cloud.providers.d
Result: None
Comment: #### /etc/salt/cloud.providers.d/saltify.conf ####
The file /etc/salt/cloud.providers.d/saltify.conf is set to be changed
Started: 20:01:28.586441
Duration: 75.185 ms
Changes:
----------
/etc/salt/cloud.providers.d/saltify.conf:
----------
diff:
---
+++
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# This file is managed by Salt via salt://salt/files/cloud.providers.d/saltify.conf?saltenv=myenv
+# This file is managed by Salt via salt://salt/files/cloud.providers.d/saltify.conf?saltenv=dev
saltify:
provider: saltify
As discussed in PR#305, these are defaults that even if they are
configurable as probably not suited to a majority of users and causes
delete/add output on highstate of user of the formula choses to use
the same file name.
These aren't intended to function; they're here to allow the use of
file.recurse on the provider folder, without requiring the user
to provide pillar data for templates they're not using.
Most include do not expect salt to be something else than the usual salt
variable giving access to all the salt modules. Instead we use cfg_salt.
And for consistency we rename the master/minion variables to
cfg_master/cfg_minion too.
This commit also provides a more concrete example of a 'host' to
be saltified. Users can do
salt-cloud -p make_salty someinstance
or
salt-cloud -m /etc/salt/cloud.maps.d/foo.conf
Either which way the online docs should really be updated with more
concrete examples.
