Migrate to chef_handler from resource-based audit

[mhedgpeth]

Description

This is a major refactoring of the cookbook and is preliminary for feedback at this point. It addresses the problem with the current version defined as resources and thus reporting "converges" when doing reporting. Instead, this implements a chef_handler that does reporting, which fits the pattern much better.

Issues Resolved

#70

Check List

• All tests pass. See https://github.com/chef-cookbooks/community_cookbook_documentation/blob/master/TESTING.MD
• New functionality includes testing.
• New functionality has been documented in the README if applicable
• The CLA has been signed. See https://github.com/chef-cookbooks/community_cookbook_documentation/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.MD

[brentm5]

This seems like a step backwards? Or was this just for your testing?

[mhedgpeth]

I couldn't run dokken on my windows machine. Plus I'm not convinced this ever worked, at least for the chef server. So it was for my testing. I'd be happy to roll it back, but don't see dokken as adding any benefit.

[brentm5]

Usually docker tests are faster / I think you can run it in travis

[mhedgpeth]

Yeah so faster tests + CI but no windows development support.I would understand if the former was deemed more valuable.

[chris-rock]

I propose to add multiple kitchen files as we are doing in https://github.com/chef/inspec
Reason: we cannot run vagrant in travis. Still like to see the vagrant option within the cookbook. Just move it to .kitchen.vagrant.yml

[mhedgpeth]

I reverted back to dokken per @chris-rock and @bigbam505 suggestions. There is an alternative for vagrant called .kitchen.vagrant.yml

[vjeffrey]

ok, I pulled down this branch, resolved the conflicts, worked through a few more small code changes that needed to be done, and this seems to be working (tested against compliance server and visibility). That work is on this branch: https://github.com/chef-cookbooks/audit/compare/vj/try-to-merge-handler I can push those changes up here directly as well, I just pushed to a separate branch in case I, ya know, messed it all up :) If ppl could pls test that this is working the way we all expect it to...that would be awesome.

[jeremymv2]

I propose we delay this until there is a better plan for fully replacing audit_mode with built-in inspec functionality in chef-client. There's just so much happening in this PR that I'm not sure it's worth the effort without very careful planning as to how inspec + chef-client work together.

[chris-rock]

@mhedgpeth although we have not merged your PR, it was the inspiration to rewrite and clean up a lot in that cookbook. Again we thank you to demonstrate the use of Chef Handler and how that can help the audit cookbook. We mention this effort in our README via #130

We are looking forward to get more feedback and PRs!