-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 107
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
Partial VLAN support refactor #98
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
27dad65
Completely rewritten vlan logic
db73027
add bundler Gemfile.lock to run tests in more environments
c3e6179
reorder stanza output when using vlanNN format and fix spec tests.
a0ed4c4
added test to check that ethN.MM syntax is correct (i.e. vlan ID is l…
a3ece2f
added test for erroneous vlan configuration
9b6bb22
Remove & ignore Gemfile.lock
3f5708a
Use gem version of rspec-puppet
adrienthebo File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@ | ||
doc | ||
Gemfile.local | ||
Gemfile.lock |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@vide can you explain this regex? If I'm reading it right it looks for three consecutive digits or four in a weird range between 4000-4095, excepting when the last digit is 6-9. Vlan 4006 should be valid, for instance. Then in your test you use vlan 4500 as an ID. What am I missing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It was the regexp used before #116 was fixed, I didn't write it :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I assume your fork has that updated regex then, but the rest remains the same? If we take it in now, it would be nice to know it matches your fork, since you've given that a field test.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@rnelson0 well my fork is quite old and it needs a rebase against current master to be useful at all. If thwere's real interesting in accepting this feature and merging it, I could work on it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@vide Yes, we are definitely interested in moving this module forward and would appreciate any and all help!