The downside is that having full Python available makes it really easy to make your playbooks non-idempotent, which Ansible gate-keeps behind Ansible modules. Also someone raised a concern that full Python (rather than a more limited safe dialect like Starlark) would make it harder to trust third-party playbooks. But considering uPlaybook's use case (ansible-like system configuration) it feels like even with a restricted dialect it is going to have plenty of opportunity for nefarious purposes.
I've put out uPlaybook for some limited review among my friends, and I've gotten some excitement about it. It doesn't have fleet management and remote running though, which is the big negative feedback I've gotten. I'm interested in thoughts on it though.
Yeah, I just have this sentiment wishing that Ansible's author used own-crafted format. HashiCorp used their own and suddenly in this case no one says "yaml should be everywhere because it's everywhere already".
In a similar mood, I wished Kubernetes was staying every from yaml. Even mentioned HCL would be better (although it's not perfect)
Yes but the task names and parameters try to mimic natural language, like assert: that:, so you're supposed to read it as a whole, and it quickly turns into an abomination, with one syntax (yaml) for the structure and another (jinja) for values and conditions
Also reminds me again that yaml should have never been born. Look how unnatural this "language" is in this article's examples