Better/more unified precedence for options that can be defined global, per model, group or per node #3105
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rubocop and not that important i guess
|
This looks good and useful to me. But I didn't test or try it. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Pre-Request Checklist
rubocop --auto-correct)rake test)Description
Hey,
with this PR options that are resolved when creating the node (like credentials, etc.) behave the same way as variables (
lib/oxidized/config/vars), which means that group options are now preferred over model options and there's now also the possibility to define these options model specific in a group, which is already possible with variables.This would help with my scenario in which nearly all devices with the same model have identical credentials, but a small group of those have different ones. First I thought that this would be possible with groups, but in the current state I didn't find a way to achieve this.
This PR also adds a section in the documentation in which I try to explain this hierarchy for options, which should make this behavior easier to understand.
also fixes #3058