Add run_kayobe_playbook() to support 2025.1 and pre-2025.1

[seunghun1ee]

To match the playbook path with SKC 2025.1, PR#98 [1] updated paths of playbooks used by multinode.sh but this broke deployments using SKC 2024.1.

Added function run_kayobe_playbook() which conditionally uses new paths if they're detected.

[1] #98

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @seunghun1ee, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request introduces a robust solution to maintain compatibility across different Kayobe versions by dynamically adjusting playbook paths. It prevents breaking changes for older deployments while accommodating the new playbook structure introduced in SKC 2025.1, ensuring a smoother upgrade path and consistent operation for users on various Kayobe releases.

Highlights

• New Function for Playbook Execution: Introduced a new shell function, run_kayobe_playbook(), to abstract the execution of Kayobe playbooks.
• Conditional Playbook Paths: The run_kayobe_playbook() function intelligently determines the correct playbook path based on the Kayobe configuration structure, supporting both SKC 2025.1 (which uses categorized playbook paths) and pre-2025.1 versions.
• Fix for SKC 2024.1 Deployments: This change resolves a regression introduced by PR#98, which updated playbook paths for SKC 2025.1 and inadvertently broke deployments using older versions like SKC 2024.1.
• Refactoring Playbook Calls: Existing direct calls to run_kayobe playbook run for various tasks (e.g., deploying seed vault, Ceph, generating certificates, deploying Wazuh, and performing upgrades) have been replaced with calls to the new run_kayobe_playbook() function.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces a new helper function, run_kayobe_playbook, to support different playbook paths for compatibility between SKC 2025.1 and older versions. This is a good approach to maintain backward compatibility. My review includes a suggestion to improve the new function by using local variables, following shell scripting best practices. More importantly, I've highlighted a potential issue where an existence check for an optional playbook was removed, which could cause script failures. I've provided suggestions on how to mitigate this potential regression.