Adding upstream version 6.17.2.upstream/6.17.2

Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>

1 files changed, 45 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/src/ansiblelint/rules/syntax_check.md b/src/ansiblelint/rules/syntax_check.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e8197a5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/ansiblelint/rules/syntax_check.md
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+# syntax-check
+
+Our linter runs `ansible-playbook --syntax-check` on all playbooks, and if any
+of these reports a syntax error, this stops any further processing of these
+files.
+
+This error **cannot be disabled** due to being a prerequisite for other steps.
+You can exclude these files from linting, but it is better to make sure they can
+be loaded by Ansible. This is often achieved by editing the inventory file
+and/or `ansible.cfg` so ansible can load required variables.
+
+If undefined variables cause the failure, you can use the jinja `default()`
+filter to provide fallback values, like in the example below.
+
+This rule is among the few `unskippable` rules that cannot be added to
+`skip_list` or `warn_list`. One possible workaround is to add the entire file to
+the `exclude_paths`. This is a valid approach for special cases, like testing
+fixtures that are invalid on purpose.
+
+One of the most common sources of errors is a failure to assert the presence of
+various variables at the beginning of the playbook.
+
+This rule can produce messages like below:
+
+- `syntax-check[empty-playbook]` is raised when a playbook file has no content.
+
+## Problematic code
+
+```yaml
+---
+- name:
+    Bad use of variable inside hosts block (wrong assumption of it being
+    defined)
+  hosts: "{{ my_hosts }}"
+  tasks: []
+```
+
+## Correct code
+
+```yaml
+---
+- name: Good use of variable inside hosts, without assumptions
+  hosts: "{{ my_hosts | default([]) }}"
+  tasks: []
+```