This looks like infinity times better than Ansible in some cases and somewhat worse in others (python.call every time I'd need to access a previous operation's result feels clunky, though I certainly understand why it works that way).
Do you think it would be possible to use Ansible modules as pyinfra operations? As in, for example:
- name: install foo
apt:
pkg: foo
state: present
could be available as:
from pyinfra import ansible
ansible(name='install foo').apt(pkg='foo', state='present')
where the `ansible` function itself would know nothing about apt, just forward everything to the Ansible module.
Note 1: I know pyinfra has a way to interface with apt, this is just an example :)
Note 2: It's just my curiosity, my sysadmin days are long gone now.
Definitely possible! Not familiar with the ansible Python API so partially guessing but the pyinfra op could yield a callback function that then calls ansible at execution time.
Alternatively you could just yield ansible cli and execute from the local machine using the @local connector.
FWIW, ansible modules (all of them, to the best of my knowledge) operate via a stdin/stdout contract since that's the one universal api for "do this thing over (ssh|docker|ssm|local)". That's also why it supports writing plugins in any language (shell, compiled, python, etc) since `subprocess.Popen().communicate(b'{"do_awesome":true}')` works great
DISCOVERING the available ansible actions is the JFC since, like all good things python, it depends on what's currently on the PYTHONPATH and what makes writing or using any such language-server some onoz
And this wasn't what you asked, but ansible has a dedicated library for exec, since the normal `ansible` and `ansible-playbook` CLIs are really, really oriented toward interactive use: https://github.com/ansible/ansible-runner#readme
If so, IMO they're the best thing that happened to roundabout design ever. You do need to choose a lane before entering but it's similar to how you'd choose a lane on a traditional two-lane roundabout. However, then you don't change lanes while on the roundabout, with ~zero visibility to the other lane while turning in a fairly tight circle.
This may differ across countries but around here you're supposed to:
* pick the inner lane unless you're taking the first exit (to the right)
* change to the outer lane just before your exit
which is about infinity times more stressful in traffic (you have very little time, it's hard to see the outer lane and the outer lane has right of way). It would work fine if everybody followed the rules but 1. they don't since it's unsafe in a tragedy of the commons sort of way and 2. then you end up with an informal turbo roundabout anyway.
A compromise that's becoming fairly common is a "soft" turbo roundabout where the lanes are divided not by ridges but by solid lines you can't cross only legally, not physically :)
Turbo roundabouts also have a significant bonus in throughput, have significantly less points of conflict than a normal two lane at the expense of longer lead-in roads. A single lane is safer but has a drawback in cars per hour.
Thank you for the name. Yes, that design. As I just commented below the stress point shifts to entering the roundabout where people crazily yank their car sideways to be on the proper lane. At all cost avoiding the feeling of having made the wrong choice. Kind of road rage psychology. And anecdotal, YMMV. I think here the soft turbo is a great compromise.
Seems like that from your description the turbo roundabout is only a problem for people who do not know it or know where there are going.
We have both types here. And now that I think about it, the turbo trades a bit more stress on first usage or a lot less every time after that. While the standard 2 or 3 lane is always similarly stresfull.
We do have a partially soft design of turbo roundabouts with phisical deviders and designated places where you can change a lane.
Same. It takes a little effort to read but it's understandable and it does feel Croatian or thereabouts. On a somewhat funny note, Chrome decided to translate the page in Interslavic from Czech to Polish and did a passable job.
What I find fascinating about Slavic languages is that I can speak Polish in Slovakia*, get responses in Slovak and mostly understand each other. It has basically zero chance of success in the Czech Republic to the point where it's easier to find an English speaker. I speak neither Czech nor Slovak and I cannot really distinguish them but I had this experience multiple times. In written form, both are similarly understandable to me (I can get the gist and guess the rest).
* the caveat about szukanie czegoś do picia still applies though.
> I can speak Polish in Slovakia*, get responses in Slovak and mostly understand each other.
i'd call slovak a "middle-slavic" language, the phonetics and the lexicon makes is easy for the other slavic spekers to understand
say, i can communicate with slovaks in ukrainian and there are no significant issues with understanding too. strangely, it doesn't work for czech. at all.
