Re: [Fab-user] road to 0.1.0

[Christian Vest Hansen]

Sorry about this, but I never got the time to review your changes
today. And I'll be going to London tomorrow on vacation, so I won't be
near any computer next week either. Therefor I'm going to release
0.0.8 as it currently is in my master branch. Hope you're OK with that
:)


On 7/13/08, Jeff Forcier <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Jeff Forcier <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>  > From here, I'll probably poke at this a bit more and try to clean it
>  > up a bit, or forge ahead and see about getting capturing implemented.
>
>
> Apologies for replying to myself a second time :) but as of this email
>  the HEAD of my 'execution' branch contains an implementation of
>  capturing via return value for run() and sudo().
>
>  Specifically, _try_run_operation() has been updated to accept either
>  the original 'signature' of a single Boolean value, *or* a two-tuple
>  of captured stdout + the boolean. run() and sudo() then return that
>  two-tuple, and _try_run_operation() uses the boolean for normal
>  failure testing, then returns the output if there was any.
>
>  Thus, operations that return these two-tuples will effectively return
>  their stdout when used in a fab command, but will also respect the
>  failure settings vis-a-vis warning/aborting.
>
>  With this and the 'deep' mode working, I've successfully implemented
>  the command that's been my immediate use-case/goal throughout my
>  journeys with Capistrano and then Fabric (see below) and it works fine
>  :D This also means that if this functionality ends up in mainline
>  Fabric in some form, it will have a big leg up over Capistrano for
>  anyone else who wants to use "deployment" tools in this fashion.
>
>  Finally, in writing the command below, I notice that mixing set/get
>  with normal Python variables gets kind of icky when you need to use
>  both in the same string, so that's something I might ponder for later.
>  That, and giving users better control over the output of the
>  operations -- my command ends up being very verbose, where one would
>  rather see mostly/only their own print statements.
>
>  Regards,
>  Jeff
>
>
>  set(
>     fab_hosts=['address@hidden', 'localhost'],
>
>     fab_mode="deep",
>     fab_fail='warn'
>  )
>
>  def deluser():
>     "Archive and delete a user."
>     prompt('username', 'User to delete')
>     # Only run if exact username found + has homedir
>     user_line = run('grep "^$(username):" /etc/passwd')
>     if user_line:
>         homedir = user_line.split(':')[5]
>         if not homedir or not run('ls -d %s' % homedir):
>             print("%s has no home directory on %s! Aborting for this host."
>                 % (get('username'), get('fab_host')))
>             return
>         # Check size of homedir
>         size = sudo('du -sm %s | cut -f1' % homedir).strip()
>         if size and int(size) < 200:
>             # Archive home dir
>             set(archive='$(username).tgz')
>             sudo('tar czf /tmp/$(archive) %s' % homedir)
>             # Copy it locally
>             download('/tmp/$(archive)', '/tmp/$(archive)')
>             # Remove user
>             # sudo('deluser --remove-home $(username)')
>         else:
>             print("%s's home directory on %s is %s MB; aborting
>  deletion for this host." % (get('username'), get('fab_host'), size))
>


-- 
Venlig hilsen / Kind regards,
Christian Vest Hansen.