New collection - Gaia

[chkp-majds]

Gaia Ansible collection to manage Checkpoint machines.

Ansible Galaxy: https://galaxy.ansible.com/check_point/gaia
GitHub: https://github.com/CheckPointSW/CheckPointAnsibleGAIACollection
Issues Tracker: https://github.com/CheckPointSW/CheckPointAnsibleGAIACollection/issues
GitHub Handles: Majd Sharkia (@chkp-majds)
Is the collection part of Automation Hub: Yes
We meet Collection Requirements: Yes

[tadeboro]

Thank you, @chkp-majds, for your inclusion request. The last date for submitting new candidates for inclusion in Ansible 5 was 2021-10-12 (see Ansible 5 roadmap for more details). Therefore, this collection will be considered for inclusion in Ansible 6 unless reviewers find time to check it next week.

[chkp-ameera]

Hi
we are planning to release new version of our collection
and we need to add (check_point.GAiA) docs for it in https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/collections/index.html
as for check_point.mgmt, can you do it for us ?

thanks

[chkp-ameera]

No
check_point.gaia is a different collection from check_point.mgmt (they are not the same)
why our collection is not in the file you mentioned ?
how can we include it ?

[Andersson007]

The process is described in the Steering Committee guidelines.
In essence, 2 reviews and approvals are required where at least one must be made by a steering committee member.

You may ask why didn't the process start earlier? - Because it is volunteer.

OK, thanks for clarifying, I'll start the first review right now.

[chkp-ameera]

Thanks

[chkp-ameera]

tell me if we should do something from our side
what is the MUST FIX tag below ?

[Andersson007]

Please take a look at #34 (comment)

[Andersson007]

Ansible Collections Checklist (short version)

For details about the following points, refer to the Collection Requirements.

Every comment should say whether the reviewer expects it to be addressed, or whether it's optional.

Note for reviewers: If you don't know how to check any of the points below, please ask maintainers of the collection you're reviewing or a Steering Committee member for clarifications in comments of corresponding inclusion discussion.

Public availability and communication:

• published on Ansible Galaxy with version 1.0.0 or later
• has a policy of releasing, versioning and deprecation announced to contributors and users in some way
  MUST FIX: I don't see it in README or in a special issue
• have a Code of Conduct (CoC) compatible with the Ansible Code of Conduct (CoC)
  MUST FIX: No CoC or links to Ansible's CoC
• have a publicly available issue tracker that does not require a paid level of service to create an account or view issues
• have a public SCM repository, releases of the collection are tagged in this repository
  MUST FIX: Releases are not tagged in the collection

Standards and documentation:

• adheres to semantic versioning
  MUST FIX: There's no info that the collection follows semver
• follows licensing rules
  MUST FIX: No license files OR info in README. Please see other already included collections, e.g. https://github.com/ansible-collections/community.crypto#licensing
  MUST FIX: I see MIT license in galaxy.yml but modules and module_utils use GPL and BSD licenses resp. Please remove MIT from galaxy.yml. You can use license_file field to refer to COPYING file when you add it (like in https://github.com/ansible-collections/community.crypto/blob/main/galaxy.yml).
• follows the Ansible documentation standards and the style guide
  MUST FIX:
  • Not all of the example descriptions (- name: ...) starts with a capital letter
  • Option descriptions MUST start with a capital letter and end with a period
  • Module description must and with a period
  • The check mode is supported by many of the modules but there's no info in their docs about it. Please add - notes: Supports C(check_mode). to every module which supports it. If all of them support, you can add it to a doc fragment and include it in every module
  • Please recheck the doc and fix it to use proper markdown. For example, description: Feature name. Valid values are feature name as shown in cp_gaia_features_facts or 'all' to specify all features must be description: Feature name. Valid values are feature name as shown in cp_gaia_features_facts or C(all) to specify all features.
  • See the comment
    SHOULD FIX:
  • Please remove ANSIBLE_METADATA block from all the modules where it's present
• follows development conventions; as well as these other requirements:
  • modules that only gather information are named <something>_info
  • modules that return ansible_facts are named <something>_facts and do not return non-facts
    MUST FIX: plugins/modules/cp_gaia_allowed_clients_facts.py for example doesn't seem to return facts using the ansible_facts field - other modules with the same issue must be fixed as well. WARNING: if you change the way it returns facts, you'll need to release a major release.
  • other modules must not allow querying information using specific state option values, or similar mechanisms (like state=get or state=query). These features should be moved to <something>_info or <something>_fact modules.
  • check_mode is supported in all _info and _facts modules
• supports Python 2.6 or greater and Python 3.5 or greater. If it does not, read the full guidelines to see if you qualify for an exception and document the unsupported Python versions in the collection README.md and in every module and plugin (or in doc fragments)
  MUST FIX: No info about supported Python versions
• only uses the allowed plugin types in the plugins/ directory
• has README.md
• documentation, examples, and return sections use FQCNs for the M(..) format macros when referring to modules
  MUST FIX: Many example doesn't use FQCN when calling modules
• modules (or plugins) from ansible-core use ansible.builtin. as a FQCN prefix
• documentation and return sections use version_added: containing the collection version for which an option, module or plugin was added
• FQCNs are used for extends_documentation_fragment:, unless you are referring to doc_fragments from ansible-core
• public plugins, roles and playbooks do not use files outside of meta/, plugins/, roles/, and playbooks/

Collection management:

• galaxy.yml having tags field set
• collection dependencies must have a lower bound on the version which is at least 1.0.0, and are all part of the ansible package
• meta/runtime.yml defines the minimal version of Ansible which the collection works with
• has changelog, preferably with changelogs/changelog.yaml
  MUST FIX: the collection has no changelog
• collection repository should not contain any large objects (binaries) comparatively to the current Galaxy tarball size limit of 20 MB. For example, package installers for testing purposes shouldn't be added.
• collection repository should not contain any unnecessary files like, for example, temporary files created by development tools. Temporary files MUST be added to .gitignore.

Tests:

• passed ansible-test sanity
• if test/sanity/ignore*.txt exists, it MUST not contain error codes listed here
• has CI tests up and running against each of the "major versions" of ansible-base/ansible-core that the collection supports
  MUST FIX: Doesn't have (add sanity and unit testing)
• all CI tests MUST run against every pull request
  MUST FIX: Don't run (add sanity and unit testing)
• all CI tests MUST run regularly (nightly, or at least once per week)
  MUST FIX: Don't run (add sanity and unit testing)
• sanity tests MUST run against a commit that releases the collection; if they don't pass, the collection won't be released
  MUST FIX: Don't run

[Andersson007]

i can see the following:

    state:
       description: Ansible state which can be present/absent
       required: False
       type: str
       default: present

which must be

    state:
       description: Ansible state which can be C(present) or C(absent).
       required: False
       type: str
       default: present
       choices: [present, absent]

Besides formatting i also added choices: [present, absent].
Please check all the modules.

[Andersson007]

@chkp-ameera
I finished the first round.
I marked with MUST FIX in my review what must be fixed.

In the description is said:

We meet Collection Requirements: Yes

Maybe i missed something so please read the Collection Requirements carefully and make the collection satisfying all of them.
As an example for testing, you can take a look at https://github.com/ansible-collections/community.docker for example (its GitHub matrix)

Thanks

[chkp-ameera]

Hi
I have made the changes and want to push to github
should I update the release to 3.0.1 or something like this ?
or it is not needed because we still reviewing 3.0.0 ?

[chkp-ameera]

I have made the changes
can you review it again ?

[chkp-ameera]

https://github.com/CheckPointSW/CheckPointAnsibleGAIACollection

[Andersson007]

@chkp-majds thanks for fixing stuff. There are still a few things to fix:

• Please add - stable-2.13 to .github/workflows/ansible-test.yml
• The collection supports ansible 2.9, so - stable-2.9 must also be uncommented. Though as 2.9 and 2.10 are EOL, i would suggest officially drop its support and remove them from .github/workflows/ansible-test.yml
• Fix sanity tests, they are red now
• How about adding unit testing to .github/workflows/ansible-test.yml
• In galaxy.yml license: - GPL-2.0-or-later please fix it to 3.0-or-later
• Tag the release commits
• Change entries like M(cp_gaia_syslog): in EXAMPLES to use FQCNs, i.e. check_point.gaia.cp_gaia_syslog:
• Remove double quotes from options in EXAMPLES "send_to_mgmt": false > send_to_mgmt: false

[chkp-ameera]

1. how to add to the docs the "- notes: Supports C(check_mode)." which you mentioned in the first review ?
2. for unit tests I understood from the documentation that it is optional, and we want to keep it for internal use.
3. what do you mean Tag the release commits ?

[Andersson007]

1. Add notes: Supports C(check_mode). to DOCUMENTATION (without the dash, sorry)
2. OK, i've marked the check dox as complete
3. put tags on release commits, e.g. 1.0.0 for a commit that releases v1.0.0, etc.
4. M is not needed in EXAMPLEs, just check_point.gaia.cp_gaia_syslog and same for all the examples

[Andersson007]

how releases can be organized, see https://github.com/ansible-collections/community.docker/tags

[chkp-ameera]

for 1: I put it witout the dash and got error with sanity test:
invalid-documentation: DOCUMENTATION.notes: not a valid value for dictionary value @ data['notes']. Got 'Supports C(check_mode).'

[chkp-ameera]

4. change the M(cp_gaia_syslog): to be check_point.gaia.cp_gaia_syslog: OR M(check_point.gaia.cp_gaia_syslog:)

[chkp-ameera]

Hi Andersson
any update ?

[Andersson007]

Hi @chkp-ameera, thanks for reminding, what is the issue with git tags? It's a requirement for inclusion.
I hope the GH official tutorial will help to overcome the issue.
Please let me know when you solve all the issues I mentioned in my review comment including the tag-related one.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

[chkp-ameera]

Hi
I need your help
in my local github I succeeded to add the tag
https://github.com/chkp-ameera/CheckPointAnsibleGAIACollection

but now I want to pull it to https://github.com/CheckPointSW/CheckPointAnsibleGAIACollection
which I forked from

how can I do that ?

[Andersson007]

Hi, please take a look at this guide https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/devel/community/collection_contributors/collection_release_without_branches.html, the release process and, in particular, tagging is described there.
If there are any questions, feel free to ask

[chkp-ameera]

Hi Andersson
our release now is ready:
https://github.com/CheckPointSW/CheckPointAnsibleGAIACollection

can you please review ?

[russoz]

The file plugins/httpapi/checkpoint.py seems to be in an odd path. I think it should be in plugins/module_utils, maybe?

[chkp-ameera]

there are two files of checkpoint.py in the two paths you mentioned

[chkp-ameera]

Hi
any update please ?

[chkp-ameera]

Hi
we need a review on our release, all notes were resolved:
https://github.com/CheckPointSW/CheckPointAnsibleGAIACollection

[chkp-ameera]

Hi Andersson
what do want me to do ?
release it as 3.0.1 or 4.0.0 ?

[Andersson007]

Hi @chkp-ameera

• Fix sanity tests first of all
• Add a changelog fragment for changes in the *_facts modules with the major_changes tag. Please see SemVer. As changes you made, to be specific, to use ansible_facts instead of unpacking return values in the *_facts modules are breaking (user interface has changed and their playbooks using the ret values will crash after updating the collection; breaking changes == major changes). According to SemVer, breaking changes can only be released in a major release. Please read SemVer carefully.
• Only when you fix sanity tests and merge the fragment, release 4.0.0.

Included collections should work predictably for Ansible users. Let's make it working as required for inclusion.
thanks

[chkp-ameera]

uploaded new one before taging 4.0.0 with fix sanity test
https://github.com/CheckPointSW/CheckPointAnsibleGAIACollection

[chkp-ameera]

Hi Andersson
Sanity test was fixed
waiting for your approval to tag the release with 4.0.0
thanks

[Andersson007]

Hi @chkp-majds LGTM, please let me know when you release 4.0.0

[chkp-majds]

We need to release it ASAP, do we need to release it as 3.0.0 before (uploading to galaxy and hub)? From: Andrew Klychkov ***@***.***> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 9:44 AM To: ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion ***@***.***> Cc: Majd Sharkia ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion] New collection - Gaia (Discussion #34) Hi @chkp-majds<https://ct-url-protection.portal.checkpoint.com/v1/load/D2NsCeXecopcmRSiDZnsdpx_zfekcygT8kE0ocUXDZ5wOLojadt1WqhtX_BNGjkw48rpOOvNQ9nZTQwwCgmr6k4OIAwWEqFkyRTkIVUkCc9ciJp434s9cLBCRc3oE98Ge0X82PWqvH9GTXv6wjDuLqIIGTECO-y1zlQfmnAw3G-WhG6WsqQfQ17Q98C2-D_9cClixX6SzDBNJ4HLRH54r8saifK2FfdgKCJnJmQ7l5ULWuFgUfEqZnLeenK6cved2JlVvEd-HxHcESbJPK5r4VFHYM-8xVnLW99w7lGIjLJTiwkLUK8veZKDFsJWl5_xVRS59elK6pGUyfojAuIQ3ARw07m2?original_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fchkp-majds> LGTM, please let me know when you release 4.0.0 — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://ct-url-protection.portal.checkpoint.com/v1/load/CekbNx80AQ54Nxhx2IRRsDav6T_IgUDhlSmyzwHamOpRRUIVqJEY4pGp1NM4bFPAahD3XPaTQ0GQDb5L-4bSk7XlYUUCRufY6leU5JoVZScqea15gspYUXSju8XJsCpNTCE0sRRUa7KPymB-9NapcRqyykiZ46vut1I40_hI6xS5hury2nrLqJnxHMeigcuiPRjerSKM2uGe6sANpE1Iyc40LUoJ2MB1LTs-ZenZIY-g5QPp-6BiOmLwnSl00JKTmvuyWUG_5VAhm5Gz9TisjoYAv0r4U_85I3ox3iPO625GR2qVXgix9L4RipnZF5blKpCckVUY5MtuauLtM9p7ODpGCJRysoNzl0Cus7qwR6owDaUkcwvaNUCCidEZb2XhSAimKRfotzGF_lAn4pzNPfpGruY_xy0iBYZecoyz7lAyob9SbtBUB3g?original_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fansible-collections%2Fansible-inclusion%2Fdiscussions%2F34%23discussioncomment-3444316>, or unsubscribe<https://ct-url-protection.portal.checkpoint.com/v1/load/ZzWlkRVKH6TIw7rfaDg2HlUYp0IjPLAq_ShJ7XzpGvyElDKOQvOJ50ZjcY9ABvOREyhvg8y8NUknPDKGNpdvR7ZJW7s4jWo8oIQ4kRRpu_mvA391-Km_UzC2g908uUhgIwdmn3wXEMvHoCZA_eNjnQ7nEEZ_wN-8V3irFZtlD4FeFNh0euoGgIhqG7ZpAPpjWNW0TXRFwObsYnfemuOPDz79aLs7-fozoxPlYbRPdWLJKz4lN171KFVGRbRoqw8Jy4EXLH8txobiqrliUYgBG27XWt2apAgYnbdfhmQIPZ6-ej5kPKJvtjh0HfMeVScHJOOKih33bNGT7lTkJy7syskmOtmG0LdQ5LOdPGjQm8N05Y6mQHDpO9NlJPo2HQRYe9pWbJN3gYWwQaEivVHNsbwitJwQYXIJwQkGkeH0MomEDoAS90k?original_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FAUGZ22WWKDKJNVIB3JS7NQDV2MOT5ANCNFSM5GLBE5HQ>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.******@***.***>> Email secured by Check Point Report Phishing<https://mta-cnf.iaas.checkpoint.com/mta_feedback?id=eb1559236df9159e8340321b8a3d587472f41977c32d2444d8be803eb930c27b&ck=00-50-56-99-7C-79;3D4CC6C8CB55;C2781DD867C6;F4239C53D72E;&v=m> Email secured by Check Point

[Andersson007]

I don't think I understand the question:)
Please release 4.0.0 using a tag and upload the result tarball to Galaxy (about Hub i don't have any thoughts as it's not about the community package)

[chkp-majds]

What do you mean release using a tag? From: Andrew Klychkov ***@***.***> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 11:22 AM To: ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion ***@***.***> Cc: Majd Sharkia ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion] New collection - Gaia (Discussion #34) I don't think I understand the question:) Please release 4.0.0 using a tag and upload the result tarball to Galaxy (about Hub i don't have any thoughts as it's not about the community package) — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://ct-url-protection.portal.checkpoint.com/v1/load/ePzgarmdohRLeJsjDFPVNXyv5Pbm4sURx7X1nIPmfNNDfSPTIJfe2n2cGrEzXWkfD4rfbrYYd0IiCrjLuT6k4TrzHEKxUAMpVbON1xGxVdCo-ppPXDHZhQu7oVVodCKYQCU2kwFCokj-EnbFpVjXGRFAZsXdkLnSp9NTMJKAWIoW3y_nQF7V5p70F7xoJPzrVIXBrFk1bey__hgR2hwMVonxTVY2HJXChUfu4WsUExshyOmQ_6n-M8Y7AtqFGHZwc7uWA6R0Ja-j24cPQtqpT6q8Su1hILw8R-lGrp1k_cx7sV9zwLU3rE_6rENBbtCXHGoYLt2zCm2zwXUG3we9TQS3-4y9YsPTCmwDm90EnWKRy2BvMDnJPMZg3ITuHIkzJ4JERMeH2ExXNa0SVVCsxdDajkZp4XsAFlNMkAVISMCkxk0WMEX9M0g?original_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fansible-collections%2Fansible-inclusion%2Fdiscussions%2F34%23discussioncomment-3445052>, or unsubscribe<https://ct-url-protection.portal.checkpoint.com/v1/load/hYaMC_7WFdYxcC83gg3BPxpOOIYxQvrXCQWelO6eGwAZ3HmwS5muZbtjBy1C1mrQSgurMONWSrsib0NYp3eZLfMR_hZFT6vp7eRHi6hJrwcuQtVgkagU70lGMaX2wjf4NvwLZ0GPUIV_UhGgageVNHj9xuUSOxI6_SYMblRzBf2S-iK9X2-4Y79TppF0AM-q3PRSsyffhuDw09C0s2z4wcca6sagsS2aSQzDuz7o3dS436ZCF831PaE0wMQJj_yeAtvGjMwytgceHweKgztsJkSCv0_9KspZCvdM0-TqGcBMBh5He36n9zOflcUArseVDn8bNugRhxUDyefpbFaab1iWZkGQBxea-nISuJNtQuzcqblkf0qO9L8zv4bDI0W4UQ4ougK3ANajdL2ZE8n_E9jZFEPGUX3lzDFu-JM_GtuVuXrqYyE?original_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FAUGZ22RA7H5R2PKOEALDTEDV2M2D3ANCNFSM5GLBE5HQ>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.******@***.***>> Email secured by Check Point Report Phishing<https://mta-cnf.iaas.checkpoint.com/mta_feedback?id=ed3e151cb9a68390cafe4eb242b5e4f74508822ec954ac2dd1dbc86c2d4aeabb&ck=00-50-56-99-7C-79;3D4CC6C8CB55;C2781DD867C6;F4239C53D72E;&v=m> Email secured by Check Point

[Andersson007]

@chkp-majds could you please read this thread carefully. There are all links to the docs and guidelines needed. Releases must be tagged according to the collection requirements.

[chkp-ameera]

Hi Andersson
Release is ready
github:
https://github.com/CheckPointSW/CheckPointAnsibleGAIACollection

galaxy:
https://galaxy.ansible.com/check_point/gaia

automation Hub:
https://console.redhat.com/ansible/automation-hub/repo/staging/check_point/gaia?version=4.0.0

Docs site still not working in galaxy and automation Hub

[Andersson007]

The collection imo satisfies the requirements. I'll change the category to second review needed. We will wait for the second review and approval then.

@chkp-ameera @chkp-majds thanks, one thing (not necessary but you can be interested) - you have unit tests but they don't run. You can add them to your GHA matrix, see the community.mysql matrix as an example.

[chkp-ameera]

thank you Andersson
maybe we will manage unit tests next release

what about Docs site ? it is still not working

[Andersson007]

it will start working within several days after the collection gets included. the collection is not included yet, that's why its docs is not there
we're waiting for the second Steering Committee member approval, roughly in a week after that, we'll include the collection

[oraNod]

Ansible Collections Checklist (short version)

For details about the following points, refer to the Collection Requirements.

Every comment should say whether the reviewer expects it to be addressed, or whether it's optional.

Note for reviewers: If you don't know how to check any of the points below, please ask maintainers of the collection you're reviewing or a Steering Committee member for clarifications in comments of corresponding inclusion discussion.

Public availability and communication:

• published on Ansible Galaxy with version 1.0.0 or later
• has a policy of releasing, versioning and deprecation announced to contributors and users in some way
• have a Code of Conduct (CoC) compatible with the Ansible Code of Conduct (CoC)
• have a publicly available issue tracker that does not require a paid level of service to create an account or view issues
• have a public SCM repository, releases of the collection are tagged in this repository

Standards and documentation:

• adheres to semantic versioning
• follows licensing rules
• follows the Ansible documentation standards and the style guide
• follows development conventions; as well as these other requirements:
  • modules that only gather information are named <something>_info
  • modules that return ansible_facts are named <something>_facts and do not return non-facts
  • other modules must not allow querying information using specific state option values, or similar mechanisms (like state=get or state=query). These features should be moved to <something>_info or <something>_fact modules.
  • check_mode is supported in all _info and _facts modules
• supports Python 2.6 or greater and Python 3.5 or greater. If it does not, read the full guidelines to see if you qualify for an exception and document the unsupported Python versions in the collection README.md and in every module and plugin (or in doc fragments)
• only uses the allowed plugin types in the plugins/ directory
• has README.md
• documentation, examples, and return sections use FQCNs for the M(..) format macros when referring to modules
• modules (or plugins) from ansible-core use ansible.builtin. as a FQCN prefix
• documentation and return sections use version_added: containing the collection version for which an option, module or plugin was added
• FQCNs are used for extends_documentation_fragment:, unless you are referring to doc_fragments from ansible-core
• public plugins, roles and playbooks do not use files outside of meta/, plugins/, roles/, and playbooks/

Collection management:

• galaxy.yml having tags field set
• collection dependencies must have a lower bound on the version which is at least 1.0.0, and are all part of the ansible package
• meta/runtime.yml defines the minimal version of Ansible which the collection works with
• has changelog, preferably with changelogs/changelog.yaml
• collection repository should not contain any large objects (binaries) comparatively to the current Galaxy tarball size limit of 20 MB. For example, package installers for testing purposes shouldn't be added.
• collection repository should not contain any unnecessary files like, for example, temporary files created by development tools. Temporary files MUST be added to .gitignore.

Tests:

Note for reviewers: If you don't know how to check the points below, please ask maintainers of the collection you're reviewing how you can do it.

• In most cases, CI is set up via GitHub Actions.
• Check .yml files in the .github/workflows directory. There must be at least the sanity section under jobs containing the ansible-test sanity command running against all supported ansible-core versions that must be also listed there, for example, - stable-2.11, - stable-2.12, - stable-2.13.
• Check workflow runs by clicking the Actions tab in the repository's page - you're interested in Scheduled runs, runs against release commits and runs against pull requests.
• If there are no workflows in the Actions tab, ask the collection maintainers how CI is implemented.

• passed ansible-test sanity
• if test/sanity/ignore*.txt exists, it MUST not contain error codes listed here
• has CI tests up and running against each of the "major versions" of ansible-base/ansible-core that the collection supports
• all CI tests MUST run against every pull request
• all CI tests MUST run regularly (nightly, or at least once per week)
• sanity tests MUST run against a commit that releases the collection; if they don't pass, the collection won't be released

[chkp-ameera]

Hi
what is the status of the release
we need to update our customers about the new one

[Andersson007]

hi, it's still need the second SC member approval, we'll start the process after it's done

[chkp-majds]

When does this will be?ETA? From: Andrew Klychkov ***@***.*** Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 1:19 PM To: ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion ***@***.***> Cc: Majd Sharkia ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion] New collection - Gaia (Discussion #34) hi, it's still need the second SC member approval, we'll start the process after it's done — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://ct-url-protection.portal.checkpoint.com/v1/load/l-VeHzqjp7gRINO6zVtmyeA0_MZN7jl-JDoPNgJ56hJJp-Dy0jgDYARZg0AP-CQY5_8mYAeFt1la7ROaRhoE5efVZNtoF2B60KZ_pERB_8VTDAzA8uuc811MpDqjvh5kfxZyRi_PI208dhUV0tJvsOrh4qNPBfWWABm0IXSZhT6ubVX2QMfXM1bav8fZK0bFIdVNr2K8kNRQ9fP0FLK5490MHOExX3ak8LIJRFkU00Np0yN9HPKVed-59DlvP_SOP7nkwzewax9TYiBB3PQ8FFbbc7NXmgN2tegFQj5wJDllCpEc4qm0cCAuGrXLCOzDdFt5tgXuNr6CwAFP_ZwrkyN-NffEO2FnBfQiD6bd6idMVZVIZgGUzI8nKdrFVHcW71N9d_QvpYm3nOXN0sY5bJQUoAIV816MrNtZ2aAQbxA-_ZRtGZBkkng?original_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fansible-collections%2Fansible-inclusion%2Fdiscussions%2F34%23discussioncomment-3507575>, or unsubscribe<https://ct-url-protection.portal.checkpoint.com/v1/load/iWpmBBWLf0SJbbMRYvZbxAuv25_4P-wSGQy2F12D3mXIg6x0iDt0WxjR_jA5f6gjgwgVYi564emfYLbhwlRq1H3kL5ug4i7BWGDI1Mj_8Z2Z5b610QAEOOlqlqkQfJNSzvxmUfcbfp38SS0NcavbDzlEeeN5RFSCGJCgxVbRBnz40Y5Dq8D_szMGSuNIgEZjKhCpUoWJGRGkLOEnKEho19Up_4T7vg8iEmlcNukxpwrvyr1csx0FJZoMhVkYyLOuCwm9eajaJE80jL4T39KTQhZuAQXUSGl9KqDLg9xkkFO1Ll4-efTRWMzss-R8FHn-c7awdGb0EMerqsjPGj3rvXS_1E47zllasXRRsN7SypDttzYbZXUcXwXANZ6v5_NjJHg_iPx-_nsGl6idYT_3vZXGu6VHfY-kd_zUqbzu-BJ0AjHQ4nI?original_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FAUGZ22TB3RZ5OKV3NTUEV63V3XN2BANCNFSM5GLBE5HQ>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.******@***.***>> Email secured by Check Point Report Phishing<https://mta-cnf.iaas.checkpoint.com/mta_feedback?id=b8d19e66ac60d5cbc5fbbcd367ab0afb501a94e947bac3e5bad7e62f55959c38&ck=00-50-56-99-7C-79;3D4CC6C8CB55;C2781DD867C6;F4239C53D72E;&v=m> Email secured by Check Point

[Andersson007]

hard to say as it's not something mandatory for them to do. when someone has time, they'll take a look

[chkp-majds]

But we need the docs, we have already trying to do that from 6 months.. From: Andrew Klychkov ***@***.***> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:36 PM To: ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion ***@***.***> Cc: Majd Sharkia ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion] New collection - Gaia (Discussion #34) hard to say as it's not something mandatory for them to do. when someone has time, they'll take a look — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://ct-url-protection.portal.checkpoint.com/v1/load/kZfe5pJW0yQC3nHfzuJqWYtdWENepVksl1h8IXlMhyy6h3nmEXrRfheU1G0bhlFMkr0bGDdN5QB-FwE27XzNuzQpvbMuz2f3zMbbi6Mddxb1NeapHFey3_2fm8-AGBkvZ1F6zRKD4e_hj5fyhfRTZZmnTpjsghTxdMIcLApOtCJxl1m6anXQ00PfonfeWk1r9pZ20iBJobR-5W04fum-10ecReNl7O4YXbSuJ49sUuVaORn-ihy0y_uMiK-3NVHZLGboDfnvQQqze_fZ_PerGQSMBaOBC8n2b7GFOxMCtq2ZH28adur5csweSs5-0PNF3LO3D1T1Y3H9L8FAuICoBkO1nXtW8JcbeI10i6LhnNfCez-H1QLaLiu-yJFSrQ9L2Y8BlEnogmqMniEYFeHG3xFQIXO-Srp_KKQSRUFZ702UqeCbV9zVH6k?original_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fansible-collections%2Fansible-inclusion%2Fdiscussions%2F34%23discussioncomment-3508180>, or unsubscribe<https://ct-url-protection.portal.checkpoint.com/v1/load/NmW4WAxgUmWGuP5wJofY9TDTvYxQf2-Iil0FLkbIO7av3fSs7Z4WsjA4l_f7xQ2XImWsIeIGvKOH42OGWHDSPGohtOA1O_K1JBEuogmMl5VNAkdQYVXO8KLZ6fBQd-gKGF5_MiIOBdDS-GyBJrePnuFEYgXqpm0_WmP9KPDPD7-3lfRrefVcw4EymJtM7EB_D0ZYU96rl2T8xS7NgQhsg-Mzp4YqYSI5Bq0iFccHGCwLQ2iG47CihBafhkyuqkOOYvt1HXJBHl7WhPE1qYuSFBcXK-tICNDJJrvOF9zItrHZB-6tC6NIsiQf1EkMli9aVTahWE2H1JJA9nkQ-Dd1_p2IVurD7syTqcYMqkjZZdleL3z4FWNzAHxNa7yQUOTuClUie1y_VfJBSDFDSq-8YtBxoxky5sNtiXAyM3feyL1T6d-YPFc?original_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FAUGZ22W7IZOKP7DKIK36EYDV3XW3TANCNFSM5GLBE5HQ>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.******@***.***>> Email secured by Check Point Report Phishing<https://mta-cnf.iaas.checkpoint.com/mta_feedback?id=bcdccd0ed9310c6adc8710c9c1970e52d6b18288b7a2b49c8e13b932e6673eb9&ck=00-50-56-99-7C-79;3D4CC6C8CB55;C2781DD867C6;F4239C53D72E;&v=m> Email secured by Check Point

[felixfontein]

I looked a bit at the collection, and I have two issues I would like to be at least commented on:

1. The collection claims to support Ansible 2.9+, but the tests do not run against Ansible 2.9 or ansible-base 2.10. Why is that?

2. I think cp_gaia_allowed_clients_facts is not behaving as expected, and probably the other facts modules as well (haven't looked closer as them). Basically some data returned from the API is returned as ansible_facts, which often is wrong - you need to make sure that it actually contains some well-defined keys and not some random data -, and the return value documentation do not mention what is included in there. Please document which facts the module is returning, or at least change the code to explicitly name the returned facts. (ansible_facts is a special return value, you cannot just return random values in it.)

   In particular when looking at https://github.com/CheckPointSW/CheckPointAnsibleGAIACollection/blob/master/plugins/modules/cp_gaia_bond_interface_facts.py#L55 - it claims the type of ansible_facts is a list - shows that something is really wrong here.

[chkp-majds]

1. We don’t know why tests doesn’t run against 2.9 and 2.10, I think you should know why? How can we do that? 2. “ansible_facts” is the key that holds in its value the real data that returned from GAIA API, and this is what we told to do from your side (Ansible). This is what we return for example: { "ansible_facts":{ "allowed_any_host":true, "allowed_hosts":[ ], "allowed_networks":[ ] }, "failed":false, "changed":false } What is wrong here? What it should be? Anyway, We will not do any changes for the current release we will make that in the next release. From: Felix Fontein ***@***.***> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 10:15 PM To: ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion ***@***.***> Cc: Majd Sharkia ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion] New collection - Gaia (Discussion #34) I looked a bit at the collection, and I have two issues I would like to be at least commented on: 1. The collection claims to support Ansible 2.9+, but the tests do not run against Ansible 2.9 or ansible-base 2.10. Why is that? 2. I think cp_gaia_allowed_clients_fact 3. s is not behaving as expected, and probably the other facts modules as well (haven't looked closer as them). Basically some data returned from the API is returned as ansible_facts, which often is wrong - you need to make sure that it actually contains some well-defined keys and not some random data -, and the return value documentation do not mention what is included in there. Please document which facts the module is returning, or at least change the code to explicitly name the returned facts. (ansible_facts is a special return value, you cannot just return random values in it.) In particular when looking at https://github.com/CheckPointSW/CheckPointAnsibleGAIACollection/blob/master/plugins/modules/cp_gaia_bond_interface_facts.py#L55<https://ct-url-protection.portal.checkpoint.com/v1/load/WBon0UaNFGFuCo2fg5lavc8Az2vps_p0ySd9FpeH0q4awujq6L4WCipMPeAQna1Pl3dyPeZk44k-WnX3Twn1BilEnU8w3hkSJ4e6nZTSTo0ehjK8JCMw4MaDOhWydj8qJR4QPjyXahdZ0KvqpNXo9j4r8Oc_qxLSxKLJWewKpAr8MiSj3zDnd_oDii6oysVNhqYzcRT7vEX1I8NfiOHCJ4XZ3MozooOVp1eI06MT2VVEQM4HUxsKnKs3j6NG0pT4bPg_b7pEB9AOnUbRmDXvn0_ABJBmFuLeXus0kHgsJSdmqTs4Pen3Mqi_rMH3AXa4kZYhfNyt75lk6lccqWGsO5nfagOFPL3mgv4wFQvsKZok_eitbyG-aTsotpgZbze5S2oh7XCui7erRVLFXV5Q0irABimv50Qe63jWPQtoP9x43aGDwjVOw1UFTUtUKAsWe3ifAUSbxWQyfyz1VXtTsgdM31TRGFty?original_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FCheckPointSW%2FCheckPointAnsibleGAIACollection%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2Fplugins%2Fmodules%2Fcp_gaia_bond_interface_facts.py%23L55> - it claims the type of ansible_facts is a list - shows that something is really wrong here. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://ct-url-protection.portal.checkpoint.com/v1/load/RwL2HZFhGAATJesAVAD-9IHWVTvrThQhRMgFKZCypTgeZjhzBaZ_Vt89Q8KLC9cHBUXw252UbpbD60wZv7iLz---6XZqLjJFP4pL-JuJm_8YVU7GtY-EwcN4p3TBVZI05_etE7YpA9ynBz6XUZOIO5EE2H22jkCLIh4KFrl5SZEjSOyHjpcyZBJRxTabpC2PUZBTmfaPcodKdqnJmSLyE48WY6s-5-iYTcJLJwBBCa7WD8d6rHfrUJ_W6pA0pPHR6o32cPcQSDO_dN1iHVWatNbOD8KTYTW4zvcFaik9lZAiH9u0nYtsB5oCMVHyJv2s1zkoGWItONP8yP_JIqgUHh1dJBlZKCGmze5va6_0sxIjm2JHaLeX75BdAcghWr-lnv_21wizid0hOuvLeDV9jPBmJ8b0oSMfcowpN6o0rvIzEDNpDhCCLgrx?original_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fansible-collections%2Fansible-inclusion%2Fdiscussions%2F34%23discussioncomment-3511872>, or unsubscribe<https://ct-url-protection.portal.checkpoint.com/v1/load/YiY1T4o74TLy-AoN9dErY56n11rC0vu5Cr-RxFq3tz-kZdgKMUaQx5nJR-K7b-J_k6FKeWRKSyxeHCj5dVPNcwqa25MGzSxmeQ5wjdURR8WWxiGY9I9uf8Tjn0PYFxDO5AIyEQ0_ZYp8SrSWsCVX6ziVqCEbUHOMZVajSqNw9OmbpZCzzR67J5XknTFGznNdqljHgMcBOPLIDKU3PpmqNNAZ9II2l6k8iCx058AZzcT4ePgdurmKvdTK3mJsba685cKPGS0y4TdFYt3uzf9clsbFUd4DTh_J0hNZym-QT0WJxSCZwun9yR93lwTxpV9cjuizPDIvDf3DtMt6X43mYGefZeNQc7Si1Mh7YuzWSOU0qTump4c_K0SvTqX4mrgpXJITGVqY-Oj4eVh1K_Fxo7O6MowDYveKkhXgRhllCysfcKYY_5sv?original_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FAUGZ22V3HMRYVVOCFIDDWK3V3ZMUNANCNFSM5GLBE5HQ>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.******@***.***>> Email secured by Check Point Report Phishing<https://mta-cnf.iaas.checkpoint.com/mta_feedback?id=00fe725758bbb515f9c62c3f91ab86b1cb6bd39b36558cffcc30c1224840c0d1&ck=3D4CC6C8CB55;48DE55E160E5;C5CEAA199888;&v=m> Email secured by Check Point

[chkp-majds]

Can you update, please? when we can close this?
Our customers are waiting for this a long time..

[Andersson007]

@chkp-majds see the comment by @felixfontein . It's written what has to be done.

[Andersson007]

issue 1: alternatively you could drop support for 2.9 and 2.10 (they are EOL) instead of adding tests against them (or you can add, it's just about adding two lines to your GHA matrix)
issue 2: please document the module as written

[chkp-majds]

But we have already passed the review and released v4.0.0, do we need to release it again?

[chkp-majds]

Any update? please confirm.
As we said before customers are waiting for this a long time..

[russoz]

Hi this is our internal response see our documentation here: https://sc1.checkpoint.com/documents/latest/GaiaAPIs/index.html#web/show-hostname~v1.7%20

we can not change that, all our users are using these APIs

Hi @chkp-majds, I am not sure I follow you. Felix asked about Ansible facts returned by the module, and you are pointing to the product API. Am I missing some part of the communication here?

[russoz]

Any update? please confirm. As we said before customers are waiting for this a long time..

@chkp-majds as you have published the collection in Galaxy, your customers can use it right away. Just tell them to:

$ ansible-galaxy collection install check_point.gaia

Despite the fact that RedHat sponsors governance and infrastructure (and probably more things), this is still a community based on voluntary work. Things are done on a best-effort basis, and there is no ETA for this.

Add to that the fact that you do not need the collection to be part of the official Ansible distribution to:

• allow your customers to use,
• publish the documentation.

This constant requesting is not helping you get things faster, probably the opposite.

[chkp-majds]

@russoz How can customers see the documentation of the APIs? we still need API docs working..

[felixfontein]

Hi this is our internal response see our documentation here: https://sc1.checkpoint.com/documents/latest/GaiaAPIs/index.html#web/show-hostname~v1.7%20

we can not change that, all our users are using these APIs

In that case you cannot simply return the API result as ansible_facts. You could either wrap it into a fact, or manually (in every module) chose which of the fields to return and decide for a new name for each of them. I think the former is probably the best solution; for example you could replace https://github.com/CheckPointSW/CheckPointAnsibleGAIACollection/blob/master/plugins/modules/cp_gaia_hostname_facts.py#L66 by

    module.exit_json(ansible_facts=dict(cp_gaia_hostname=res["ansible_facts"]))

Then instead of the global name name your users need to write cp_gaia_hostname.name. In this case, it would make a lot more sense to expose this as

    module.exit_json(ansible_facts=dict(cp_gaia_hostname=res["ansible_facts"]["name"]))

though so cp_gaia_hostname is a string that can be used directly.

(Alternatively create _info instead of _facts modules, then you don't have this problem.)

[russoz]

@chkp-majds if you really need to publish that documentation, and you need to be in control of the publishing process, you can run the commands that will generate the HTML docs and publish in a regular webserver.

A quick search brings:
https://tech.xlab.si/blog/documenting-ansible-collections/

Update: another example
https://github.com/ansible-collections/community.mongodb/blob/master/.github/workflows/documentation.yml

[felixfontein]

You could also use antsibull-docs (see for example https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/devel/dev_guide/developing_collections_documenting.html#build-a-docsite-with-antsibull-docs).

[chkp-majds]

See attached image, Customers complaining about the docs site not working.
I'm not sure I understand your comment above, we just need to make sure that docs site is working. and that's it...
https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/collections/check_point/gaia/index.html

[felixfontein]

Since you put a link there that does not work, you should change it to a different one that works.

[russoz]

I am saying that docs are NOT REQUIRED to reside in the doc.ansible.com URL. You can control where to publish, see: https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/dev_guide/collections_galaxy_meta.html

[chkp-majds]

I don't understand, we need to schedule a meeting ASAP.
What have we been doing since month?

[chkp-majds]

Any update??

[briantist]

@chkp-majds is getting documentation published the only reason you are seeking inclusion?

[chkp-majds]

@briantist I'm not sure I understand you, we need to add the docs in galaxy (see above).
What is the status?

[briantist]

@chkp-majds ok, I will try to ask more discrete questions:

1. Do you understand what the Ansible community package is?
2. Do you understand what it means to be included in the Ansible community package?
3. Do you understand that this is not a one-time evaluation, but that upon inclusion you must work to keep your collection in compliance with these requirements, or risk being removed from the package?
4. What are your specific reasons for seeking inclusion in the package?
5. If you had documentation for your collection published to a web site, would you still be asking for inclusion?

we need to add the docs in galaxy (see above)

The reason I am asking these questions, is that your comments and questions demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of this process, and the procedure itself. I would like to see if the misunderstanding can be resolved.

[samccann]

@chkp-majds Hi there! I'm one of the Red Hat writers. While I work primarily on the community Ansible, I do have access to Red Hat Automation Hub and Ansible Automation Platform. I can see that this collection (version 4.0.0) has already been released on Automation Hub as a certified collection and is accessible to customers from there. You should point your customers to that version of the documentation - https://console.redhat.com/ansible/automation-hub/repo/published/check_point/gaia/docs
(Note that url works for customers who have a subscription to Ansible Automation Platform).

If you are looking for documentation for Checkpoint customers who do not have an Ansible Automation Platform subscription, you may want to consider the alternatives suggested above for generating your own docsite if you need something updated quickly and entirely under your company control. Once you have that docsite, you can change the galaxy.yml file to point to it.

I'm not suggesting you have to change anything, just presenting some options to consider.

[chkp-majds]

@samccann Thank you, we will check that way, but our original request still exists, and it's simply the following:
In Check Point, we have 2 collections one for MGMT API and one for GAIA API, the MGMT API is working as expected using the link in the galaxy.
https://galaxy.ansible.com/check_point/mgmt
Which refers to:
https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/collections/check_point/mgmt/index.html

And we need to add to our's collection those docs.
https://galaxy.ansible.com/check_point/gaia
You can see that the docs site is not working:
https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/collections/check_point/gaia/index.html

[samccann]

Understood. docs.ansible.com depends on the collection being added to the package, which depends on getting that 2nd approval here.

[chkp-majds]

Ok, NP when we can get the approval?

[chkp-ameera]

Hi @samccann
before we proceed with the process DOCs below I need to mention that I talked with the guys from mgmt collection in our company and they said that they didn't get nor the first approval or the 2nd one which we are doing here
all they did is publishing their collection in the galaxy and then you (ansible/red hat) created this doc site for them based on their DOCs in the modules
https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/collections/check_point/mgmt/index.html

now the question is , why this process changed in your side ?
is this a new process (getting two approvals) ?

[samccann]

why this process changed in your side - The original checkpoint modules were part of Ansible 2.9. That means they existed before collections existed. When we created collections, all the collections with the moved modules were accepted into Ansible with no extra approvals required.

Is this a new process - Approvals are required for all new collections since that initial Ansible 3 release a couple of years ago. So from checkpoint's perspective, yes, this is likely the first time y'all have had to go through the formal approval process.

[samccann]

take this with a grain of salt as I'm just the docs person, but reading back:
1 - there are technical questions/issues in this comment that you'll need to address - #34 (reply in thread)
2 - It would also be helpful if you respond to this comment #34 (reply in thread) to be sure you and your company understand that getting into the community Ansible package means you are committing to maintaining this collection for some time to come, etc. The gist of this is - it may actually be faster/easier for you to create a separate docsite rather than wait on a collection approval and inclusion here if time is critical for you.

As for a meeting - as was mentioned, this is a volunteer community for the most part so there are no real face to face meetings. That said, if you are on IRC or matrix, you can use chat to get some help from community members. The matrix link is https://matrix.to/#/#community:ansible.com. More on ansible chat options is at https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/community/communication.html.

[chkp-ameera]

can I create a doc page like this in your ansible docs ?
https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/collections/check_point/mgmt/index.html
or it is only created after this process of review ?

[samccann]

You can only have a page like that on docs.ansible.com after this review completes.

You could follow prior comments to create your own independent docsite using github Pages. I don't have a good example, but it would look something like this - https://sensu.github.io/sensu-go-ansible/

[chkp-majds]

Hi Andrew, You are raising another points every time, why not raising it all once? It’s not working like this.. From: Andrew Klychkov ***@***.***> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 11:49 AM To: ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion ***@***.***> Cc: Majd Sharkia ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [ansible-collections/ansible-inclusion] New collection - Gaia (Discussion #34) Hi @chkp-ameera<https://ct-url-protection.portal.checkpoint.com/v1/load/8qJmZeQ2KSQ6hGGmUlATycFaLvLrv8hWe7i12CyMAZbtzCPWBw9KLYwcfg9gtBri58wx87m4PrRPH809IqEIASZGq9U6X2KLLialwOcBTS6rRS4HGDZJU4pNnc9y-jpmHk9kAbtdQpwPAU7NmE4D92ainqsR-un03O8cdoOcTO3juHcg-8j-i2TjsQuGAjIYGkrk6PrQ3GUv5G_SCnYUra_DFSwHNV_7PcdGFNK8B6XyTMSeFVkCh-gDDyWMdk77TjgBpav5dYVUD1gOaO5dbYIqfFCc-o67QnrNTMemO-l7qYGQ4WIFePVhebGmqq1i0ipq8godXaw3XbAaMeHHdcgPBBdSpg?original_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fchkp-ameera> * [ ] Fix sanity tests first of all * [ ] Add a changelog fragment for changes in the *_facts modules with the major_changes tag. Please see SemVer<https://ct-url-protection.portal.checkpoint.com/v1/load/IvJ7uMYZihWjkoxCvAdzONgVZgP3Id7b61LV_ELATJHGjEk0vT4o99tkvtq1Rflx0v2l_qUi9FgFeX-2PYF0XMHCJ4JtEZfXgTarYpdLRrjxUAHC_lszsCvN3cg5ZDQFEWMQA-2RFR8o6SAsvVKeJLC-j6O9_6dXqNLL6WbLQHygjwCmpICHbCm7mk879zezzhS1SAuu12pH0QuG89kZNzGAv6SpaQ1ISayl8ON66_U1eqTpw3YAy9WLTao4WfYoipYfEa1ROYh8uSf-yR0YgiyVojf59AC5yOohOVUb7nsSi7bzKVC4MP2bbFFdrdf9AWJ42Oyc0yfaL7c?original_url=https%3A%2F%2Fsemver.org%2F>. As changes you made, to be specific, to use ansible_facts instead of unpacking return values in the *_facts modules are breaking (user interface has changed and their playbooks using the ret values will crash after updating the collection; breaking changes == major changes). According to SemVer, breaking changes can only be released in a major release. Please read SemVer carefully. * [ ] Only when you fix sanity tests and merge the fragment, release 4.0.0. Included collections should work predictably for Ansible users. Let's make it working as required for inclusion. thanks — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://ct-url-protection.portal.checkpoint.com/v1/load/gEyn2urCjcFx_V4JiJ9bxdRHYWdh9r40fCXMWDQP8ANRXOiUhtQ4FvwzssAZdPY4or3lAo0N9-dteaP5paH-8kMlMXdlqDMbrxuRyNd9iouvYX8LBK5WZCLRd2GEJq5_Um5sDVOKAxvJhysARqbpjCq0Vx7k-fXtTxeqNSkHwn_17qEGHZhOAmlN6ut9Pvpm0oHg5KaV5LAP0wByNQivAVNjp6HSIRQ-9OYkL4sG6GANhSbEo2IjKRbpG6S4zE1K5iA_mY9TwokdDgPd9TiJHDd5sRGuyn5mJdadrvTwxJsDA8zPUvQiCs9fqaLoH95IvR2Ci9wMHNVRylTXJMidmrQR2Bwl-CGn4paIE8UmgscROQ5XRQiUevSPlOiiZ9KqjE_btBElF22L8HwpDdg6eVQ97Wh__vTNfkd3VdM7WWToB2B5GZHXms8?original_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fansible-collections%2Fansible-inclusion%2Fdiscussions%2F34%23discussioncomment-3420972>, or unsubscribe<https://ct-url-protection.portal.checkpoint.com/v1/load/XKpvW2YFpXLHkdbqjLdrJhLtlNw_o7iOXnUtTNaoH9NRiC8lozPOKBLEMG7JN84QyNVMKp54sk7WtINKtKQUWds9cJuT299FIzj5uPJrkLDjwZ84ceIQcCXtZyOsiseDq3V6Bf_Tnb0_TKZ8Ux9_cQ2DwsdwCQaMdX-nBs4CYS0Bhy-sB27r0jmlY0VMfJjoduaOR1lQVLY8oWDCuqZjWJ4yPJthE_1Ll2bWS183aTxURZrTWtU5syyVtt98UQBl5tOZSBuJRUpAEutJwGBIakZqkCLugbX5wcMVTV3k88QzM42LycrLQXqdrOaf1hxCWLG4DEObxoRJWpOEedwmjRORMpmfrCx8qAhmmCyX9FDR3vARaZWrBxvDLHtXFr0gQGPIkAo6i8H-_1LSqPVsB-XwZAcd5TT7C2o33Q9aL7_XgkJF_d8?original_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FAUGZ22SHIA2EPXPTY5KFIMTVZX2G7ANCNFSM5GLBE5HQ>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.******@***.***>> Email secured by Check Point Report Phishing<https://mta-cnf.iaas.checkpoint.com/mta_feedback?id=9aef46d7ead884767871c61e43535c320ba6b25a4f5a81f958f030e1299b1974&ck=00-50-56-99-7C-79;3D4CC6C8CB55;C2781DD867C6;F4239C53D72E;&v=m> Email secured by Check Point

[Andersson007]

@chkp-majds ok