Return status in check mode

[Geethree]

SUMMARY

In check mode, it is useful to know both what the current values of the release are, and the proposed values of the release based on the state of the playbook.

Addresses : #188

ISSUE TYPE

• Feature Pull Request

Questions

• current and proposed feel a little off in terms of ansible norms, any suggestions for something "better"?
• What would be the best way to address this in the documentation? Maybe adding another values('check_mode') key?

[Geethree]

Hmm. I'll figure out how to get these test to run locally here in a day or two.

[Akasurde]

recheck

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #192 into main will decrease coverage by 5.16%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #192      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   41.90%   36.74%   -5.17%     
==========================================
  Files           3        3              
  Lines         556      724     +168     
  Branches      114      144      +30     
==========================================
+ Hits          233      266      +33     
- Misses        279      409     +130     
- Partials       44       49       +5     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...ommunity/kubernetes/plugins/module_utils/common.py	35.56% <0.00%> (-2.64%)	⬇️
...s/community/kubernetes/plugins/module_utils/raw.py
...ns/community/kubernetes/plugins/action/k8s_info.py	21.83% <0.00%> (ø)
...ctions/community/kubernetes/plugins/modules/k8s.py	97.77% <0.00%> (+7.77%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 4f33ba7...f88e95a. Read the comment docs.

[tima]

recheck

[geerlingguy]

@tima heh... that doesn't work in this repo. I'll rerun the tests.

Edit: For some reason, I'm not able to re-run the checks.

[tima]

@geerlingguy: bah! and i thought i was so smart.

[fabianvf]

@geerlingguy got tests passing

[tima]

@Geethree:

current and proposed feel a little off in terms of ansible norms, any suggestions for something "better"?

Instead of "proposed" what about "desired" or "declared"? Those are terms we use a lot while talking about Ansible and idempotency. We use "current state" a lot though so that one seems fine to me.

[Geethree]

Hello. Apologies for the delay in response, and thank you to @fabianvf for finding the failure there.

I kind of like your suggestion of "proposed" @tima. Would you like to do so @fabianvf or I could step in as well? Just want to make sure we do not step on one other's toes.

[tima]

Actually, @Geethree I suggested "declared" instead of "proposed".

[geerlingguy]

lgtm