Skip to content

fix _user_data_change fails assertion after a soft clean #3514

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
pinikomarov merged 1 commit into from
Dec 16, 2025
Merged

fix _user_data_change fails assertion after a soft clean #3514

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion roles/config_drive/tasks/main.yml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@
ansible.builtin.assert:
that:
- _meta_data_change is not changed
- _user_data_change is not changed
- _user_data_change is skipped or _user_data_change is not changed
- _net_data_change is not changed
Copy link
Contributor

@hjensas hjensas Dec 2, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we should do the same for _net_data_change - tasks "Generate user-data" and "Generate network-data" both use conditions like below, so both of should have the is skipped assert?

  when:
    - cifmw_config_drive_userdata is defined
    - cifmw_config_drive_userdata | length > 0


  when:
    - cifmw_config_drive_networkconfig is defined
    - cifmw_config_drive_networkconfig

Update, looks like | length > 0 on the cifmw_config_drive_networkconfig might make sense as well? But could do that in a separate PR?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@pinikomarov pinikomarov Dec 16, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@hjensas while those suggestions may work , for the issues in this BZ they're not needed.
Currently I'm not at capacity to test them further and their implications thoroughly.

I suggest we merge the changes here as they are , since they'ew tested and analyzed,
and leave any subsequent changes in seperate PRs.

Copy link
Contributor

@hjensas hjensas Dec 16, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sure, but please do a follow up.

msg: >-
You're trying to edit an existing ISO. This isn't possible,
Expand Down
Loading