Adds a kitchen flag that gives options for different kitchen configs

[burtlo]

To provide support out-of-the-box for kitchen-dokken there is a flag now to specify which base kitchen configuration to use.

By default a chef cookbook will generate a kitchen configuration using vagrant as the driver. You may find that you want to use kitchen-dokken as your default kitchen environment when generating your cookbooks.

$ chef generate cookbook COOKBOOKNAME --kitchen dokken

That plugin requires a little more setup as it is a driver, provisioner, and transport. It also requires special considerations with the platforms that it uses for testing.

To learn more about the benefits of kitchen-dokken take a look at this blog post: https://blog.chef.io/2018/03/06/kitchen-docker-or-kitchen-dokken-using-test-kitchen-and-docker-for-fast-cookbook-testing/

Signed-off-by: Franklin Webber franklin@chef.io

[danielsdeleo]

👍 from me. Kinda wondering if we should try to unify the kitchen yaml templates but IMO we can merge this and clean that up later should we decide it's needed.

[burtlo]

vagrant berks config vs vagrant policy file config

vagrant berks config vs dokken config

vagrant policy file config vs dokken config

[burtlo]

I imagine if we tried to merge these would place more logic in the recipe that could make sense.

Most of that content could be represented as JSON and then inserted correctly. Comments would be a meta-field in that data structure that would render alongside the appropriate field.

I'd be happy to make that change here or in a future commit if this approach and YET ANOTHER FLAG is the best way to proceed.

[robbkidd]

Option: could add the "so you want to verify services?" shenanigans to these driver entries in the platform section?

[burtlo]

I think it’s a good idea. Of course based on our conversation it assumes you’re running on a *nix based system.

I’d be interested in learning the windows option if that is known and add that.

[danielsdeleo]

@burtlo thanks for posting those diffs. It actually made me realize we need to delete the policyfile one. Doing that would bring us back to just 2 templates which is below the "rule of 3" for refactoring so just ignore my earlier comment :)

[robbkidd]

Rebased against current master branch.

[robbkidd]

I don't remember what I meant by ...

the "so you want to verify services?" shenanigans

... so ...

[lock]

This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.