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

New Module: win_domain_ou take 2 #278

Merged
merged 51 commits into from
Sep 23, 2021
Merged

Conversation

gamethis
Copy link
Contributor

The win_domain_ou module manages Active Directory Organizational Units (OUs).
ISSUE TYPE

New Module Pull Request

COMPONENT NAME

win_domain_ou
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Includes Integration Tests - See documentation file for full details on how the module works.

Copy link
Collaborator

@jborean93 jborean93 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Most of the information here looks good. I do have some concerns with trying to convert the LDAP properties to and from snake_cake. I personally think they should just be as is and have people set the actual LDAP property name in that dict and avoid all the conversions in the module. For example I think postal_code should stay as postalCode to better reflect the raw nature of properties.

What are your thoughts on this?

plugins/modules/win_domain_ou.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
plugins/modules/win_domain_ou.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@gamethis
Copy link
Contributor Author

gamethis commented Sep 16, 2021

fixed issues. closed and reopened to get the test to run again. everything is good now.

@gamethis gamethis requested a review from jborean93 September 16, 2021 17:14
@gamethis gamethis closed this Sep 16, 2021
@gamethis gamethis reopened this Sep 16, 2021
@gamethis
Copy link
Contributor Author

Most of the information here looks good. I do have some concerns with trying to convert the LDAP properties to and from snake_cake. I personally think they should just be as is and have people set the actual LDAP property name in that dict and avoid all the conversions in the module. For example I think postal_code should stay as postalCode to better reflect the raw nature of properties.

What are your thoughts on this?
Made the changes

Copy link
Collaborator

@jborean93 jborean93 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just a few minor nits, looks like the doc examples also need to be updated to use the actual LDAP property names rather then the snake_case ones that were originally in place.

plugins/modules/win_domain_ou.ps1 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
plugins/modules/win_domain_ou.ps1 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
plugins/modules/win_domain_ou.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@gamethis gamethis requested a review from jborean93 September 16, 2021 23:10
plugins/modules/win_domain_ou.ps1 Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
plugins/modules/win_domain_ou.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
plugins/modules/win_domain_ou.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
plugins/modules/win_domain_ou.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
plugins/modules/win_domain_ou.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@gamethis gamethis requested a review from jborean93 September 17, 2021 01:42
@jborean93 jborean93 merged commit f3a2c5d into ansible-collections:main Sep 23, 2021
jborean93 added a commit to jborean93/community.windows that referenced this pull request Sep 23, 2021
jborean93 added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 23, 2021
@jborean93
Copy link
Collaborator

I've unfortunately had to revert this commit as further testing found some larger problems #297. It seems like some of the tests have been written around actual results rather than the proper expectations, testing something had not changed when in reality it should for that scenario.

@gamethis
Copy link
Contributor Author

I don't fully comprehend the difference in the final test and why it shows different from the other... bu t I think I have found the error in the code that caused it... I will go back and iprove the test and reoopen a pr in next day or so

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