Fix dsc_script spec failure on 64-bit Ruby

[chefsalim]

dsc_script_spec.rb currently fails under 64-bit Ruby. The fix here is to make sure we ensure that the node architecture for the test is always set to 64-bit (since dsc is not supported on 32-bit Windows).

@adamedx @jaym

[jaym]

👍

[adamedx]

So isn't the key here that we only support running these specs on a 64-bit OS vs. a 64-bit process? The specs themselves have always been 32-bit to this point, but Chef (also 32-bit) shells out to 64-bit).

My note here is only about the comment, basically I think it's more accurate to say 64-bit OS instead of 64-bit process. Does that seem reasonable?

[chefsalim]

The failure case was under a 64-bit OS - we would specify a i386
architecture if NOT running as a 32-bit process under a 64-bit OS. When we
ran under 32-bit, that was as a 64-bit process as you indicate. So I think
process is correct. Maybe we can say "64-bit architecture" instead?

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Adam Edwards [email protected]
wrote:

In spec/functional/resource/dsc_script_spec.rb
#3797 (comment):

@@ -67,8 +67,7 @@ def delete_user(target_user)
node = Chef::Node.new
node.automatic['platform'] = 'windows'
node.automatic['platform_version'] = '6.1'

• node.automatic['kernel'][:machine] =

•  is_i386_process_on_x86_64_windows? ? :x86_64 : :i386
  

• node.automatic['kernel'][:machine] = :x86_64 # Only 64-bit process is supported

So isn't the key here that we only support running these specs on a 64-bit
OS vs. a 64-bit process? The specs themselves have always been 32-bit to
this point, but Chef (also 32-bit) shells out to 64-bit).

My note here is only about the comment, basically I think it's more
accurate to say 64-bit OS instead of 64-bit process. Does that seem
reasonable?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/chef/chef/pull/3797/files#r37549239.

[chefsalim]

Updated comment to say 'architecture'

[adamedx]

The existential questions of 64-bitness have been answered. 👍