There could be a lot of redundant data if the output is many pages long
even in the case of a one-item task - in the current implementation.
So I do not take your point on that one.

An alternative solution would be, of course to make Ansible to format the
output in a human readable way on the user's request. Then there would be
no need in duplicating `stdout` with `stdout_lines` at all.



On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Michael DeHaan <[email protected]>wrote:

> I'm not sure.
>
> If the output is many pages long, that would be a lot of redundant data.
>
> That being said, that is true of the original.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Roman Revyakin 
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Sorry, posted wrong output for the multi-item task (too early in the
>> morning I guess :-). Here's the evidence the multi-item 'results' return
>> data structure lacks the 'stdout_lines' attribute for the individual items:
>>
>> TASK: [debug var=post]
>> ********************************************************
>> ok: [localhost] => {
>>     "item": "",
>>     "post": {
>>         "changed": true,
>>         "msg": "All items completed",
>>         "results": [
>>             {
>>                 "changed": true,
>>                 "cmd": "cd tasks; ls ",
>>                 "delta": "0:00:00.006166",
>>                 "end": "2014-02-21 08:30:32.003038",
>>                 "invocation": {
>>                     "module_args": "cd tasks; ls",
>>                     "module_name": "shell"
>>                 },
>>                 "item": "cd tasks; ls",
>>                 "rc": 0,
>>                 "start": "2014-02-21 08:30:31.996872",
>>                 "stderr": "",
>>                 "stdout":
>> "cf_app_remap.yml\ncf_deployment.yml\nconcat_files.yml\nnpm_install.yml"
>>             }
>>         ]
>>     }
>> }
>>
>>
>> On Friday, February 21, 2014 8:48:20 AM UTC+11, Roman Revyakin wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> One of the pain points for us often times is the Ansible lack of the
>>> human-readable representability of the output of the task that has been
>>> run. A workaround up to now has been to use the `debug:
>>> var=output.stdout_lines` which while not perfect is at least more bearable
>>> in terms that one does not have to unwrap the '\n' into the new lines in
>>> his mind while reading the output:
>>>
>>> - name: post-deployment tasks executed
>>>   local_action: shell cd tasks; ls
>>>   when: cf_post_deployment_tasks is defined
>>>   register: post
>>>   tags:
>>>     - post-deploy
>>>
>>> - debug: var=post.stdout_lines
>>>   tags:
>>>     - post-deploy
>>>
>>> TASK: [debug var=post.stdout_lines] ******************************
>>> *************
>>> ok: [localhost] => {
>>>     "item": "",
>>>     "post.stdout_lines": [
>>>         "cf_app_remap.yml",
>>>         "cf_deployment.yml",
>>>         "concat_files.yml",
>>>         "npm_install.yml"
>>>     ]
>>> }
>>>
>>> However, once a task is a multi-item one, the returned data structure
>>> lacks the `stdout_lines` attribute:
>>>
>>> - name: post-deployment tasks executed
>>>   local_action: shell {{ item }}
>>>   with_items: cf_post_deployment_tasks
>>>   when: cf_post_deployment_tasks is defined
>>>   register: post
>>>   tags:
>>>     - cf
>>>     - post-deploy
>>>
>>> - debug: var=post
>>>   tags:
>>>     - post-deploy
>>>
>>> TASK: [debug var=post] ******************************
>>> **************************
>>> ok: [localhost] => {
>>>     "item": "",
>>>     "post": {
>>>         "changed": true,
>>>         "cmd": "cd tasks; ls ",
>>>         "delta": "0:00:00.004343",
>>>         "end": "2014-02-21 08:31:01.088304",
>>>         "invocation": {
>>>             "module_args": "cd tasks; ls",
>>>             "module_name": "shell"
>>>         },
>>>         "item": "",
>>>         "rc": 0,
>>>         "start": "2014-02-21 08:31:01.083961",
>>>         "stderr": "",
>>>         "stdout": "cf_app_remap.yml\ncf_deployment.yml\nconcat_files.
>>> yml\nnpm_install.yml",
>>>         "stdout_lines": [
>>>             "cf_app_remap.yml",
>>>             "cf_deployment.yml",
>>>             "concat_files.yml",
>>>             "npm_install.yml"
>>>         ]
>>>     }
>>> }
>>>
>>> Could you tell if it's something you would consider fixing if I create
>>> an issue on github?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> With kind regards,
>>> Roman
>>>
>>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Ansible Project" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to [email protected].
>>
>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Ansible Project" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/ansible-project/Ucg4FeGTCmw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Ansible Project" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to