Issue 2185 - Migrate Rieveld superuser creation to fixture

Depends on http://codereview.adblockplus.org/638943906024652 (see https://issues.adblockplus.org/ticket/2185#comment:2) --

[mathias, 2015-03-20 12:48:08]

A tiny update aligned with https://issues.adblockplus.org/ticket/2188 --

[Felix Dahlke, 2015-03-21 20:53:05]

Looks good, just one question.

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/6651739155464192/diff/5741031244955648/modu...
File modules/private-stub/hiera/roles/codereviewserver.yaml (right):

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/6651739155464192/diff/5741031244955648/modu...
modules/private-stub/hiera/roles/codereviewserver.yaml:4: source:
"puppet:///modules/private/rietveld-auth-users.json"
Can't we set this outisde private-stub? Seems a lot like this would be the same
file/path for both develompent and production, the file contents make the
difference.

[mathias, 2015-03-21 23:47:26]

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/6651739155464192/diff/5741031244955648/modu...
File modules/private-stub/hiera/roles/codereviewserver.yaml (right):

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/6651739155464192/diff/5741031244955648/modu...
modules/private-stub/hiera/roles/codereviewserver.yaml:4: source:
"puppet:///modules/private/rietveld-auth-users.json"
On 2015/03/21 20:53:06, Felix H. Dahlke wrote:
> Can't we set this outisde private-stub? Seems a lot like this would be the
same
> file/path for both develompent and production, the file contents make the
> difference.

Not only the contents of the file are specific to the development environment -
the very requirement for this fixture is specific as well. In other words:
Outside private-stub, this snippet would introduce a non-required new
requirement for any future use of the rietveld module. 

Sure, we'll probably do something similar in production, but that is only
circumstantial anyway. It's quite possible, for example, that we decide to
always have some test data set up in development (but of course not in
production). That could be in another fixture. Or the same. It just does not
matter when handled in private, and does not interfere with any requirement from
any other environment.

PS: One should think of module "private" as "environment", because that's
actually what it is - environment-specific setup. The fact that we maintain our
production environment data in a confidential repo is just unimporant for the
Puppet logic. Also, one would not feel the need to justify the existence of the
module if named slightly different.. ;-)

[mathias, 2015-03-22 00:48:10]

On 2015/03/21 23:47:26, matze wrote:
>
http://codereview.adblockplus.org/6651739155464192/diff/5741031244955648/modu...
> File modules/private-stub/hiera/roles/codereviewserver.yaml (right):
> 
>
http://codereview.adblockplus.org/6651739155464192/diff/5741031244955648/modu...
> modules/private-stub/hiera/roles/codereviewserver.yaml:4: source:
> "puppet:///modules/private/rietveld-auth-users.json"
> On 2015/03/21 20:53:06, Felix H. Dahlke wrote:
> > Can't we set this outisde private-stub? Seems a lot like this would be the
> same
> > file/path for both develompent and production, the file contents make the
> > difference.
> 
> Not only the contents of the file are specific to the development environment
-
> the very requirement for this fixture is specific as well. In other words:
> Outside private-stub, this snippet would introduce a non-required new
> requirement for any future use of the rietveld module. 
> 
> Sure, we'll probably do something similar in production, but that is only
> circumstantial anyway. It's quite possible, for example, that we decide to
> always have some test data set up in development (but of course not in
> production). That could be in another fixture. Or the same. It just does not
> matter when handled in private, and does not interfere with any requirement
from
> any other environment.
> 
> PS: One should think of module "private" as "environment", because that's
> actually what it is - environment-specific setup. The fact that we maintain
our
> production environment data in a confidential repo is just unimporant for the
> Puppet logic. Also, one would not feel the need to justify the existence of
the
> module if named slightly different.. ;-)

For reference, please note also the upcoming changes in the context of
https://issues.adblockplus.org/ticket/2187 - which are currently based on this
patch-set here and thus not uploaded yet, but you can preview them anyway:
https://github.com/mjhennig/adblockplus-infrastructure/compare/2185-rietveld-...

[Felix Dahlke, 2015-03-22 06:30:16]

Oh well, LGTM.