Actions
Bug #13615
closedBad explanation for generic variable overide priority cause people making the opposite of what is needed
Pull Request:
Severity:
Minor - inconvenience | misleading | easy workaround
UX impact:
User visibility:
Getting started - demo | first install | level 1 Techniques
Effort required:
Very Small
Priority:
0
Name check:
Fix check:
Regression:
Description
When people try to override generic variable technique with priority, they naturally follow what the "?" tell. But generic variable definition works in the opposite of unique directive (because it is not a unique directive, and so the priority thing is just a hack of cfengine taking the last definition, so the least prioritary one).
We need to special case the "?" for generic variable definition and refer to https://docs.rudder.io/reference/5.0/usage/advanced_configuration_management.html#_special_use_case_overriding_generic_variable_definition for the full explanation.
Updated by François ARMAND about 6 years ago
- Status changed from In progress to Pending technical review
- Assignee changed from François ARMAND to Alexis Mousset
- Pull Request set to https://github.com/Normation/rudder/pull/2042
Updated by François ARMAND about 6 years ago
- Status changed from Pending technical review to Pending release
Applied in changeset rudder|4940c73165301e002f14316eae02813fddfbbab7.
Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ about 6 years ago
- Status changed from Pending release to Released
Actions