The installer should provide checks as a stand-alone command and as part of the happy path

[ehelms]

This issue is tracking the addition of checks to the installation.

• Relevant checks for prerequisite
• Certificate checks
• Database checks for remote database

[evgeni]

One of the things that I'd love to have as part of this is an overview of "all failed checks", and not (like we had it in the past), that you see a failure, fix it, just to be greeted with another.

In evgeni/ansible-wtf#1 I've played around with how this can be implemented in Ansible by using block to include the individual check roles and then report all results (collected by rescue) in a dedicated fail step.

Would love your thoughts on this.

Also CC @archanaserver and @ekohl who are not subscribed to this issue :)

[ehelms]

Structurally I think the code looks good. The output to the user leaves me wanting something better. I know we dropped the use of the debug callback which formatted things nicer. I had been avoiding raising this question but now seems like the time. Should we implement our own output callback to format things like this better?

[evgeni]

You have an example how you'd like the output to be formatted?

Would this be sufficient?

TASK [fail] ******************************************************
fatal: [localhost]: FAILED! => 
    changed: false
    msg: |-
        LOL
        WHAT
        IS
        THIS

If so, it's as easy as setting https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/collections/ansible/builtin/default_callback.html#parameter-result_format to yaml.

[ehelms]

Maybe? I think I would need to see it when multiple checks fail.

[evgeni]

Aye. Will do once we have checks ;)

I think the yaml output above matches what debug would have done (formatting wise, debug also outputs more fields, but that's not the problem here)

[archanaserver]

To track down all the checks:

• Add katello-certs-check as foreman-certificate-check #154
• Add hostname check #207
• Add Subuid/Subguid check #209
• Add IPv6 check #208
• Add remote db check #210
• add system requirement check #218

[evgeni]

With #218 merged, I think we have everything we wanted in the first round of checks.