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

mysql_replication: remove mode values and ret values containing master / slave #252

Merged

Conversation

Andersson007
Copy link
Collaborator

@Andersson007 Andersson007 commented Nov 29, 2021

SUMMARY

Relates to
#145
#147
#150
#97

Will be release as a breaking change with 3.0.0

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 29, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #252 (75a9321) into main (d411a8e) will increase coverage by 0.44%.
The diff coverage is 66.66%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #252      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   77.99%   78.44%   +0.44%     
==========================================
  Files          24       24              
  Lines        2159     2134      -25     
  Branches      508      498      -10     
==========================================
- Hits         1684     1674      -10     
+ Misses        309      301       -8     
+ Partials      166      159       -7     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
plugins/modules/mysql_replication.py 68.37% <66.66%> (+2.55%) ⬆️

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 d411a8e...75a9321. Read the comment docs.

@Andersson007
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Copy link
Contributor

@Jorge-Rodriguez Jorge-Rodriguez left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM
Should we test for expected failures when using the old terminology?

@Andersson007
Copy link
Collaborator Author

LGTM Should we test for expected failures when using the old terminology?

Good question

@Andersson007
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@Jorge-Rodriguez the tests have been added (the more tests the alwaysbetter), thanks:)

@Andersson007 Andersson007 merged commit 1f796d9 into ansible-collections:main Dec 1, 2021
@Andersson007
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@Jorge-Rodriguez thanks for reviewing!

@nerijus
Copy link

nerijus commented Apr 14, 2022

Now it does not work with mariadb versions <10.5, for example, 10.4.
If I use slave_pos:

value of primary_use_gtid must be one of: current_pos, replica_pos, disabled, got: slave_pos

If I use replica_pos:

(1064, "You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MariaDB server version for the right syntax to use near 'replica_pos' at line 1")

@Andersson007
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@nerijus , working on this, thanks!

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants