The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20210908034715/https://github.com/saltstack/salt/issues/60307
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

[BUG] inconsistent behaviour between supervisord.running and supervisord.dead for process groups #60307

Open
jouve opened this issue Jun 3, 2021 · 2 comments

Comments

@jouve
Copy link

@jouve jouve commented Jun 3, 2021

Description

let's say I have an apache process group I want to control.

  • when using supervisord.running, the name must be apache:* (which is the same notation used by supervisor)
  • when using supervisord.dead, the name must be apache: (without the *)

As both states mirror each other, I expect them to use the same convention for name, the one from running since it's the convention from supervisor.

The difference is that the final * is stripped in running : https://github.com/saltstack/salt/blob/master/salt/states/supervisord.py#L83 but not in dead : https://github.com/saltstack/salt/blob/master/salt/states/supervisord.py#L278

Implementing the same behaviour from running in dead is backward compatible

Setup

apache is running:
  supervisord.dead:
  - name: 'apache:*'

# KO but what I expect
KO -- apache is stopped:
  supervisord.dead:
  - name: 'apache:*'

# OK but not what I expect
OK -- apache is stopped:
  supervisord.dead:
  - name: 'apache:'

Steps to Reproduce the behavior

setup a supervisor with an apache config group & run the sls from previous section

Expected behavior

running/dead use the same parameters.

Screenshots

Versions Report
salt 3001.1 (both master/minion)

Additional context

@sagetherage
Copy link
Contributor

@sagetherage sagetherage commented Jun 4, 2021

@jouve
The Salt version is vulnerable. We recommend upgrading as soon as possible to at least the latest point release (3001.7) or to latest. You can find those on releases here in GitHub or the package repo.

@jennshan
Copy link

@jennshan jennshan commented Aug 9, 2021

Hi,
I would like to work on this issue, is it open or someone working on it?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
4 participants