With this change, the existing host-based Ansible provisioner is
refactored to share a maximum of code with this new guest-based Ansible
provisioner.
At this stage of development, the existing unit tests are intentionally
modified as little as possible, to keep safe the existing funtionalities.
Other issues resolved by this changeset:
- Display a warning when running from a Windows host [GH-5292]
- Do not run `ansible-playbook` in verbose mode when the `verbose` option
is set to an empty string.
The benefits of the following "breaking change" are the following:
- default behaviour naturally fits with most common usage (i.e. always
connect with Vagrant SSH settings)
- the autogenerated inventory is more consistent by providing both the
SSH username and private key.
- no longer needed to explain how to override Ansible `remote_user` parameters
Important: With the `force_remote_user` option, people still can fall
back to the former behavior (prior to Vagrant 1.8.0), which means that
Vagrant integration capabilities are still quite open and flexible.
Added details about what works for windows and what doesn't, fixed typo, broke runners out from states, added 3 options (version, masterless, and minion_id).
This allows the display of friendly output to the user when we think an
important action should be labeled a certain way. This makes vagrant
output a lot more useful when many inline shell provisioners are
present.
As of Vagrant 1.7+, the ansible parallel provisioning trick is easier to
be implemented with `config.ssh.insert_key=false` (fallback to previous
behaviour).
Close#5048
[ci skip]
Like Vagrant's default SSH behaviors (e.g ssh or ssh-config commands),
the Ansible provisioner should by default not modify or read the user
known host file (e.g. ~/.ssh/known_hosts).
Given that `UserKnownHostsFile=/dev/null` SSH option is usually combined
with `StrictHostKeyChecking=no`, it seems quite reasonable to bind the
activation/disactivation of both options to `host_key_checking`
provisioner attribute.
For the records, a discussion held in Ansible-Development mailing list
clearly confirmed that there is no short-term plan to adapt Ansible to
offer an extra option or change the behavior of
ANSIBLE_HOST_KEY_CHECKING. For this reason, the current implementation
seems reasonable and should be stable on the long run.
Close#3900
Related References:
- https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/ansible-devel/iuoZs1oImNs/6xrj5oa1CmoJ
- https://github.com/ansible/ansible/issues/9442
