[WesolyKubeczek]

I never grokked this “plays” and “roles” business. All in all, this clever and cute terminology gives me creeps. I only use “playbooks” as series of tasks, more or less.

Maybe I need an explanation “like I’m just a programmer/sysadmin and I need to use boring terms years old” of what is what, every explanation so far (when I bothered to look for it last) was too invested in this theatrical terminology, so I gave up and stuck to what worked after a command or two.

Same with Chef and its galore of cooking words, but thankfully I don’t have to use Chef.

[zanecodes]

To this day I'm miffed that Chef has "cookbooks" which contain "recipes," which contain... "resources." Why not "ingredients??" It was right there!

[awesomeMilou]

> Maybe I need an explanation “like I’m just a programmer/sysadmin and I need to use boring terms years old”

The issue is, Ansible was written for sysadmins who aren't programmers. There is no good explanation, other than it's a historically grown, syntactic and semantic mess that should've been barebones python from the get go.

It is not idempotent. For example, how can I revert a task/play when it fails, so that my infra doesn't end up in an unknown state? How do I deal with inevitable side effects that come from setting up infra?

People will now refer you to Terraform but that is imo a cop out from tool developers that would much rather sell you expensive solutions to get error handling in Ansible (namely RedHat's Ansible Automation platform) than have it be part of a language.

But to give you a proper explanation: Plays define arrays of tasks, tasks being calls to small python code snippets called modules (such as ansible.builtin.file or ansible.builtin.copy). To facilitate reuse, common "flows" (beware, flow is not part of their terminology) of tasks are encapsulated into reusable roles, although reusability depends on the skill of the author of the role.

[ornornor]

Ansible is useful but so confusin (to me anyway).

The way I see roles vs playbooks is whether I’m going to reuse it or not.

Roles are more generic playbooks in a sense that I can share with others or across deployments (for example setup a reverse proxy, or install a piece of software with sane, overridable defaults.

I can then use roles within playbooks to tweak the piece of software’s configuration. If it’s a one-off confit/setup then I’ll use a playbook.

I don’t know if it’s the right paradigm (I don’t think it’s explained well and clearly in the docs), but using this rule of thumb has helped me deal with it.

Of course, any role can be a playbook and vice versa since they do the same thing functionally, it’s all about reusability and sharing.

Kinda how you have libraries in software: role = library, playbook = the software you actually want to write.

[rmetzler]

An Ansible playbook is usually the main entrypoint, it consists of a list of plays. Each play has hosts and a list of tasks to run at them.

Because people wanted to reuse their code, the abstraction of roles was created. A role is something like „setup basic OS stuff“, „create this list of users“, „setup a Webserver“, „setup a database“. The association, which roles to run on which machine still happens in the playbook.

[WesolyKubeczek]

I'm using include_tasks: and import_playbook:, like an animal :)

[trallnag]

You can't share a set of tasks on Ansible Galaxy without wrapping it in a role