Skip to content
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

Galaxy change #12

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

Galaxy change #12

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

jburel
Copy link
Member

@jburel jburel commented Oct 6, 2023

Adjust metadata and fix url

Copy link
Member

@sbesson sbesson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Trying to get my head around the upstream changes which broke the role publication.

Looking at https://forum.ansible.com/t/data-migration-to-the-new-galaxy-ansible-com/1321, ansible/galaxy#3253, https://forum.ansible.com/t/namespace-issue-with-new-galaxy-ansible-com/1325, it feels like the concept of role namespace has been either dropped or maybe more specifically collapsed with github_author.
All OME roles were using the the ome namespace so the impact of this change probably involves updating all GitHub workflows and Galaxy metadata files will need to be updated (again) but it shouldn't cause a full renaming of the roles.

On the keys themselves, it's hard to be authoritative as I cannot find an official reference for the specification. Part of the issue is probably that meta/main.yml is used both for the core Ansible metadata (like role dependencies)) and optional Galaxy metadata. For collections, it looks like the Galaxy metadata is managed into a separate file https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/dev_guide/collections_galaxy_meta.html
The only question is author vs github_author but the changes here look consistent with https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/galaxy/user_guide.html#using-meta-main-yml.

I assume it's going to hard to avoid a trial and error to resolve this one so no immediate objection from my side

@jburel
Copy link
Member Author

jburel commented Oct 25, 2023

Replaced by #13

@jburel jburel closed this Oct 27, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants