chef-utils
chef-utils copied to clipboard
facebook
Enabling more verbose logging with the arguments used when shelling o…
…ut, logging env vars, and minor improvement on the organization of passthrough env vars
Differential Revision: D40161133
fbshipit-source-id: 189b3755113fc1f785c088d5771f8d1d74730c14
@jaymzh - the internal diff has been merged. I have now amended the commit message to reflect the relevant change here. Please let me know if I messed something up in doing so. And apologies for any confusion.
Thanks, much appreciated!
The failing steps here are simply formatting - and don't match the internal ones. Do you need me to fix it or can this be merged? (fyi, merging is blocked for me)
There's no delta here, so there's nothing to be merged. However, even if there was, I believe this is all ShipIt controlled, so you can't merge on GH, only in Phab, and then it gets synced out.
That said, the mis-match in formatting is likely due to mis-matched versions of Rubocop. They should be sync'd up. @NaomiReeves can probably help with that (I would, but I don't have access to the internal state). The tl;dr is figuring out what version of the tools are currently in ChefWorkstation (and/or fb-chefdk-gems) that's in use internally, and then updating the tests here to specifically use that version.
@jaymzh - as for the "there are no changes here" - I think the original problem you wanted addressed (i.e., the non-sensical commit message wrt to the change that went out publicly vs internally) is still there. I see the change in master, but with the old commit message.
Do you see a way for me (or anybody else) to fix it?
No, you'd break the tree if you amend the message now. ShipIt operates based only on code changes, not on anything else. But it's fine. We can just close those. But we should definitely get tests passing both internally and externally.
No, you'd break the tree if you amend the message now. ShipIt operates based only on code changes, not on anything else. But it's fine. We can just close those. But we should definitely get tests passing both internally and externally.
Internally, we are good - externally, we have those linter issues. But I suppose I can't fix that - let's hope @NaomiReeves can.
Hi @thehcma!
Thank you for your pull request.
We require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement, and yours needs attention.
You currently have a record in our system, but the CLA is no longer valid, and will need to be resubmitted.
Process
In order for us to review and merge your suggested changes, please sign at https://code.facebook.com/cla. If you are contributing on behalf of someone else (eg your employer), the individual CLA may not be sufficient and your employer may need to sign the corporate CLA.
Once the CLA is signed, our tooling will perform checks and validations. Afterwards, the pull request will be tagged with CLA signed. The tagging process may take up to 1 hour after signing. Please give it that time before contacting us about it.
If you have received this in error or have any questions, please contact us at [email protected]. Thanks!
Hi @thehcma!
Thank you for your pull request.
We require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement, and yours needs attention.
You currently have a record in our system, but the CLA is no longer valid, and will need to be resubmitted.
Process
In order for us to review and merge your suggested changes, please sign at https://code.facebook.com/cla. If you are contributing on behalf of someone else (eg your employer), the individual CLA may not be sufficient and your employer may need to sign the corporate CLA.
Once the CLA is signed, our tooling will perform checks and validations. Afterwards, the pull request will be tagged with CLA signed. The tagging process may take up to 1 hour after signing. Please give it that time before contacting us about it.
If you have received this in error or have any questions, please contact us at [email protected]. Thanks!