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

Issue 748: conflit with gpnupg2 on centos8 #750

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Oct 19, 2020
Merged

Conversation

haidars
Copy link
Contributor

@haidars haidars commented Oct 15, 2020

Issue #748

  • Add guards on while installing gnupg to avoid conflit with gnupg2 on RHEL/Centos8

@haidars haidars requested a review from a team as a code owner October 15, 2020 07:14
Copy link
Member

@mx-psi mx-psi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the PR! The PR code looks good to me but you will need the CI pass so that we can merge this. In particular you need to update the spec tests to account for this change. You can run the tests locally following these guidelines.

.rubocop.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@haidars
Copy link
Contributor Author

haidars commented Oct 15, 2020

Thanks for the PR! The PR code looks good to me but you will need the CI pass so that we can merge this. In particular you need to update the spec tests to account for this change. You can run the tests locally following these guidelines.

Spec file has been updated to reflect the changes.

Comment on lines 44 to 47
it 'installs gnupg' do
expect(chef_run).to install_package('gnupg')
end

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We still install gnupg on some situations so we want to keep the spec test. One way to reflect what you did in the code is:

      it 'installs gnupg' do
        expect(chef_run).to install_package('gnupg') if chef_run.node['packages']['gnupg2'].nil?
      end

Would you mind adding back the spec tests following that pattern?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Of course... will do that in the evening...

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done for unit test

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Awesome, thanks for taking the time to fix that!

Copy link
Member

@mx-psi mx-psi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, thank you again! 🚀

@mx-psi mx-psi merged commit f4d3dfd into DataDog:master Oct 19, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants