Make lv that is a substring of a vg work

[genebean]

This PR builds on #230. In local testing all tests related to this PR pass while some facter-related tests failed on this branch and on master.

Prior to this commit a logical volume that was a substring of the name of a volume group could not be created due to a false positive by the exists? method of the provider.

The sample output of lvs in the spec tests was updated to this:

  LV      VG         Attr       LSize   Pool Origin Data%  Meta%  Move Log Cpy%Sync Convert
  lv_root VolGroup   -wi-ao----  18.54g
  lv_swap VolGroup   -wi-ao---- 992.00m
  data    data       -wi-ao---- 992.00m
  j1      vg_jenkins -wi-a-----   1.00g

After adding a test to verify that a logical volume named jenkins does not exist the original exists? check failed like so:

Puppet::Type::Logical_volume::ProviderLvm
  self.instances
    returns an array of logical volumes
  when checking existence
    returns 'true', lv 'data' in vg 'data' exists
    returns 'nil', lv 'jenkins' in vg 'vg_jenkins' exists (FAILED - 5)
    returns 'nil', lv 'data' in vg 'myvg' does not exist

After updating the exists? method to instead use lvs_pattern the new tests passes:

Puppet::Type::Logical_volume::ProviderLvm
  self.instances
    returns an array of logical volumes
  when checking existence
    returns 'true', lv 'data' in vg 'data' exists
    returns 'nil', lv 'jenkins' in vg 'vg_jenkins' exists
    returns 'nil', lv 'data' in vg 'myvg' does not exist

Co-authored-by: Ruediger Pluem [email protected]

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #244 into master will increase coverage by 0.12%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #244      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage    72.7%   72.83%   +0.12%     
==========================================
  Files          17       17              
  Lines         773      773              
==========================================
+ Hits          562      563       +1     
+ Misses        211      210       -1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
lib/puppet/provider/logical_volume/lvm.rb	69.36% <100%> (+0.57%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update d6c3514...d8c31dd. Read the comment docs.

[sheenaajay]

@genebean Could you please confirm if the following changes are causing new failures (facter-related tests)on master branch and this branch or are they existing failures.

" In local testing all tests related to this PR pass while some facter-related tests failed on this branch and on master."

[genebean]

The same errors are present without these changes. You can confirm by cloning, checking out master, and running pdk test unit

_{Sent with GitHawk}

[vStone]

I have tested this using pdk and using plain bundle rake and I can confirm that all tests run.

[sheenaajay]

Thanks alot @vStone @genebean

[sheenaajay]

@genebean @vStone Executed pdk test unit locally on this branch and master branch both gave failures on the following tests.
Looks like its not introduced with this PR. Existing failures on master branch.
rspec ./spec/unit/facter/lvm_support_spec.rb:54 # lvm_vgs facts when there is lvm support when there are no vgs is set to 0
rspec ./spec/unit/facter/lvm_support_spec.rb:63 # lvm_vgs facts when there is lvm support when there are vgs lists vgs
rspec ./spec/unit/facter/lvm_support_spec.rb:94 # lvm_pvs facts when there is lvm support when there are no pvs is set to 0
rspec ./spec/unit/facter/lvm_support_spec.rb:103 # lvm_pvs facts when there is lvm support when there are pvs lists pvs

[rpluem]

Anything I can provide to move this forward?

[DavidS]

Thanks everyone for your contributions!

[rpluem]

@DavidS Thanks. Two questions though:

1. What about the test in d64c11d? Shouldn't it be added as well?
2. What can I do to get this included in a release?

[genebean]

@rpluem Regarding the test, I'd suggest a new PR that just adds that.

[rpluem]

@rpluem Regarding the test, I'd suggest a new PR that just adds that.

@genebean Done as #246

[rpluem]

@DavidS, @genebean What can / should / must I do to get this included in a release?

[genebean]

I’m going to try and do the release when I go in today. I had some tooling problems on my laptop that kept me from doing it Friday or yesterday that should be resolved now.

_{Sent with GitHawk}