-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.5k
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
Allow pillar relative includes #52156
Conversation
Fixes saltstack#8875 - a longstanding issue
Can/should this be added to release notes? |
@waynew It would be nice if this feature worked exactly as in states, i.e. multiple dots should work too: https://docs.saltstack.com/en/latest/ref/states/include.html#relative-include
Also, no docs at all 😞 |
@max-arnold Do pillar relative includes work that way? |
No, pillar includes do not work that way, but it makes sense to implement because state includes support this, and feature symmetry is generally a good thing. See the states doc I mentioned earlier: https://docs.saltstack.com/en/latest/ref/states/include.html#relative-include
|
Wow, I'm not sure at all what I meant there 🙃 I think it's probably worth creating an issue/feature request. I don't know if it's significant enough to create a SEP, but I agree with the feature symmetry point. |
When porting this to master it should be noted that it closes #56186 |
Allow pillar relative includes Fixes saltstack#8875 and Fixes saltstack#56186
What does this PR do?
Implements longstanding request #8875 - allows for pillar relative includes
What issues does this PR fix or reference?
#8875 - there are probably others
Previous Behavior
A leading dot in a pillar include was a nop. If you had a pillar like:
foo/bar/baz.sls
That would not refer to
foo/bar/bang.sls
, butbang.sls
at the pillar root.New Behavior
Now leading dots in includes refer to relative imports 🎉
Tests written?
Yes
Commits signed with GPG?
Yes
I'm operating under the assumption that #52008 will be merged.. forward?