Ability to force pull docker_image about docker HOT 8 CLOSED

Would it make sense for this to be a different action? :force_pull vs :pull? It seems almost analogous to the :create vs :create_if_missing with some of the other resources.

from docker.

+1 to :pull vs :pull_if_missing. Abstracting the docker cli should behave like the docker cli.

from docker.

+1 to separate action

On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Jeffrey Hulten [email protected]:

+1 to :pull vs :pull_if_missing. Abstracting the docker cli should behave
like the docker cli.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/54#issuecomment-33984863
.

Brian Flad
http://about.me/bflad

from docker.

Glad I asked! I'll work up the PR accordingly.

from docker.

@gabrtv I'd be a fan of renaming current pull action to pull_if_missing. Thanks so much and let me know if you need any help.

from docker.

My PR does the following:

• moves the existing pull action to pull_if_missing.
• adds a new pull action that checks the hash of the label before and after to determine if the resource updated.

@gabrtv Hope we didn't work at cross purposes. I have the okay from my boss to improve this cookbook on company time.

from docker.

@jhulten #55 looks great to me. The hash check is a nice feature.

@bflad and I were talking about how this problem really applies to more than :pull -- :build, for example, should really exhibit similar behavior. There's probably others.

from docker.

I've merged #55 and released 0.28.0, which should fix this behavior. I'll create a separate issue for :build action. Feel free to create others as necessary.

from docker.