Add support for specifying additional floppy/_packer_config*.cmd files #235
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…cifying custom configurations prior to the provisioning step.
…ad of floppy/_packer_config.cmd so that users can link-in custom configurations for the floppy step.
arizvisa
added
the
enhancement
arizvisa
changed the title
|
Just need to run a smoke test on this really quick to confirm it doesn't break anything even though the logic is minimal. |
|
Successfully tested this against the following templates: |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR splits up some of the functionality from PR #229 that allows the user to specify more than one
floppy/_packer_config.cmdfile as long as the custom configuration corresponds to the globfloppy/_packer_config*.cmd. This is done as the aforementioned functionality requires modifying all of the templates and is an addition claimed by the author of #229's to be a requirement of their PR.As a consequence, this should simplify the review of the mentioned PR which modifies the functionality of the way in which we download files and at the same time allow other users to link in their own configurations which is relevant to both PRs #229 and #83.