Open
Conversation
Contributor
|
@baurmatt any chance you can rebase this? |
Contributor
Author
|
@bastelfreak Done! :) Do you have merge rights? :) |
Contributor
Contributor
|
@spacedog hey, any chance you can take a look? |
Owner
|
@baurmatt: could you please resolve conflicts as I made few changes to repository? |
sorrison
pushed a commit
to NeCTAR-RC/puppet-wireguard
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 6, 2025
add option to purge unknown wg keys
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This adds support for using the deferred function in Puppet 6:
I would suggested reviewing/merging #20 first because it will extend the test matrix with Puppet 5/6 and will therefore ensure this change is tested on all supported Puppet versions.
Regarding tests for the Deferred usage: I think this isn't currently possible because I fail to see an option to pass the Deferred function in rspec through the params variable.
This differs from #6 because it adds a couple more things: