Vagrant Boxes are re-imported in every run

[abednarik]

Hi all

We applied #202 in our develop branch and we detect something that we want to comment. Every time we run a kitchen test we see this

[ack_fix_vagrant_concurrency-MVVQYBRDAXXGZQN4AXNNULFWB3J7O576EUXB5VC5I6FZKQN5EPEQ] Running shell script
Using /home/jenkins-slave/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.4.1
-----> Starting Kitchen (v1.16.0)
-----> Cleaning up any prior instances of <cronmaster-freebsd-103>
-----> Destroying <cronmaster-freebsd-103>...
       Finished destroying <cronmaster-freebsd-103> (0m0.00s).
-----> Testing <cronmaster-freebsd-103>
-----> Creating <cronmaster-freebsd-103>...
       Bringing machine 'default' up with 'virtualbox' provider...
       ==> default: Preparing master VM for linked clones...
           default: This is a one time operation. Once the master VM is prepared,
           default: it will be used as a base for linked clones, making the creation
           default: of new VMs take milliseconds on a modern system.
       ==> default: Importing base box 'perceptyx/freebsd-10.3-amd64'...
       
Progress: 10%
Progress: 20%
Progress: 30%
Progress: 40%
Progress: 50%
Progress: 60%
Progress: 70%
Progress: 80%
Progress: 90%
==> default: Cloning VM...

==> default: Matching MAC address for NAT networking...

Note that the vagrant box is imported every time we run the job. This was not the previous behavior, box was imported just one time and the next runs didn't re-import the box.

[SaltStack_master-IOZJWEBD3FDDA3KENYEYT6IBYV3FNSFNVIG4QIQRNTATKP7ORNDA] Running shell script
Using /home/jenkins-slave/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.4.1
-----> Starting Kitchen (v1.16.0)
-----> Cleaning up any prior instances of <cronmaster-freebsd-103>
-----> Destroying <cronmaster-freebsd-103>...
       Finished destroying <cronmaster-freebsd-103> (0m0.00s).
-----> Testing <cronmaster-freebsd-103>
-----> Creating <cronmaster-freebsd-103>...
       Bringing machine 'default' up with 'virtualbox' provider...
       ==> default: Cloning VM...
       
==> default: Matching MAC address for NAT networking...

Is this something we should expect or is a bug?

Thanks in advance.
Cheers.

[cheeseplus]

We've reverted #202 as it caused more than a few issues, closing.