Verify EPEL support in acceptance tests

[ekohl]

Now CentOS 7.4 is out this pending statement can be removed.

https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2017-September/022532.html

[wyardley]

Acceptance test still seems to be seeing the source as nodesource.

Also, there's an unrelated mocha error that I've seen locally now showing up in the regular spec tests.

[ekohl]

I will admit that I didn't run it locally, just sent it to Travis. Otherwise I'm not surprised this fails: the resource is ensured to be installed so most likely it needs to be removed before running the tests.

[wyardley]

Also, in the Vagrant (vs. Docker) boxes, do they run a yum update when they come up, or would we need Puppetlabs to pack a new CentOS 7 box before these will work?

[wyardley]

Otherwise I'm not surprised this fails: the resource is ensured to be installed so most likely it needs to be removed before running the tests.

Yeah, we do something similar in puppet-nginx. Good point.
But also, I think the [Vagrant] acceptance test box is still 7.3:

[root@centos-7-x64 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release
CentOS Linux release 7.3.1611 (Core) 

edit: oh, this is using centos/7 vs. the puppetlabs ones, so I think I can just let the new version get downloaded.

[ekohl]

Also, in the Vagrant (vs. Docker) boxes, do they run a yum update when they come up, or would we need Puppetlabs to pack a new CentOS 7 box before these will work?

I expect they don't but don't have to either. There is only one CentOS 7 URL so it'll find the dependency and install it when needed. No need to update the full box though the docker image is already updated.

[wyardley]

What do you think the cleanest way is to remove the package within the acceptance test? It's already running only on RedHat, so could I guess remove with yum / rpm, but maybe should use puppet resource?

[ekohl]

puppet resource is the easiest. We could add a before(:all) block to do that.

[wyardley]

ps, I think the error in https://travis-ci.org/voxpupuli/puppet-nodejs/jobs/275380441 is the same as #312
Not sure why that wasn't showing up earlier.

[wyardley]

@ekohl have you had a chance to revisit this?

[ekohl]

@wyardley no I haven't and I don't think I'll have time to in the near future.

[wyardley]

No worries, I will see if I can work on it. We got some clarity on what the expectation is, so may just need to not try and check where the package is coming from.