Fix user provider specs - #604
Open
jcharaoui wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
Conversation
Contributor
Author
Logs of the failing RSpec tests |
Contributor
Author
|
I believe the failing testcase is due to a mismatch of In Debian we use 2.5.1, which should be the latest release. I couldn't tell which version is used in the CI environment. |
This fixes multiple user provider specs failing with:
NameError:
uninitialized constant Etc::PasswdEntry
which suggests these specs weren't getting much exercise, probably
because the CI environment is lacking the ruby-shadow library which in
turn disables the Puppet feature transparently.
It also updates a couple assertions that were also outdated.
Signed-off-by: Jérôme Charaoui <jerome@riseup.net>
jcharaoui
force-pushed
the
fix_useradd_specs
branch
from
August 12, 2026 13:55
e82e616 to
2cf0d5f
Compare
Signed-off-by: Jérôme Charaoui <jerome@riseup.net>
jcharaoui
force-pushed
the
fix_useradd_specs
branch
from
August 12, 2026 18:40
2cf0d5f to
9223c41
Compare
bastelfreak
reviewed
Aug 13, 2026
| @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| let(:shadow_entry) { | |||
| return unless Puppet.features.libshadow? | |||
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess we never executed that test in CI because the ruby-shadow gem is missing and then the return hits?
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(we need to get the gem into our CI)
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes I think that's correct. Installing the gem in CI would be well-advised, IMHO.
bastelfreak
reviewed
Aug 13, 2026
| let(:shadow_entry) { | ||
| return unless Puppet.features.libshadow? | ||
| entry = Etc::PasswdEntry.new | ||
| entry = Shadow::Passwd::Entry.new |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is this requried? did the API for the ruby-shadow gem change?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As I mentioned in the OP, Etc::PasswdEntry doesn't exist, so the test crashes right there, but only when ruby-shadow is available in the environment, which is why it wasn't caught earlier.
If you look at dd3df54 it sounds like the intention was to change it to Etc::Passwd not Etc::PasswdEntry (which doesn't seem to have existed, ever) but that doesn't work either, and it was never caught because again, the spec never actually ran in CI...
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
This fixes multiple user provider specs failing with:
NameError:
uninitialized constant Etc::PasswdEntry
which suggests these specs weren't getting much exercise, probably because the CI environment is lacking the ruby-shadow library which in turn disables the Puppet feature transparently.
It also updates a couple assertions that were also outdated.