Pros of AWX

• Provides a web-based UI for managing Ansible playbooks and inventories
• Offers role-based access control and job scheduling capabilities
• Integrates with various cloud providers and version control systems

Cons of AWX

• More complex setup and maintenance compared to Ansible Runner
• Requires additional resources to run (database, web server, etc.)
• Steeper learning curve for users new to Ansible

Code Comparison

AWX (Python):

from awx.main.models import Job

job = Job.objects.create(
    name="My Job",
    project=project,
    playbook="playbook.yml",
    inventory=inventory
)
job.launch()

Ansible Runner (Python):

import ansible_runner

r = ansible_runner.run(
    private_data_dir='/tmp/demo',
    playbook='playbook.yml'
)
print(r.status)

Summary

AWX is a comprehensive web-based solution for managing Ansible at scale, offering advanced features like scheduling and access control. Ansible Runner, on the other hand, is a lightweight Python library for directly executing Ansible playbooks and commands. AWX is better suited for large teams and complex environments, while Ansible Runner is ideal for simpler setups or integration into existing Python applications.

Pros of Ansible

• More comprehensive and feature-rich, offering a complete automation platform
• Larger community and ecosystem, with extensive documentation and support
• Provides a wide range of built-in modules for various tasks and integrations

Cons of Ansible

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive features and capabilities
• Heavier resource usage, especially for large-scale deployments
• More complex setup and configuration process

Code Comparison

Ansible:

- name: Install Apache
  hosts: webservers
  tasks:
    - name: Install Apache package
      yum:
        name: httpd
        state: present

Ansible Runner:

import ansible_runner

r = ansible_runner.run(private_data_dir='/tmp/demo', playbook='install_apache.yml')
print(r.status)

Key Differences

• Ansible is a full-featured automation platform, while Ansible Runner is a tool for programmatically invoking Ansible
• Ansible Runner provides a more streamlined interface for embedding Ansible in other applications or workflows
• Ansible offers a declarative approach using YAML playbooks, whereas Ansible Runner allows for programmatic execution of Ansible tasks

Use Cases

• Ansible: Ideal for complex infrastructure management, configuration management, and application deployment
• Ansible Runner: Better suited for integrating Ansible functionality into custom applications, CI/CD pipelines, or other automation tools

Pros of Molecule

• Focused on testing Ansible roles and playbooks
• Supports multiple test scenarios and platforms
• Integrates well with CI/CD pipelines

Cons of Molecule

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• More complex setup compared to Ansible Runner
• Limited to testing Ansible content

Code Comparison

Molecule configuration example:

---
dependency:
  name: galaxy
driver:
  name: docker
platforms:
  - name: instance
    image: docker.io/pycontribs/centos:7
    pre_build_image: true

Ansible Runner execution example:

import ansible_runner

r = ansible_runner.run(private_data_dir='/tmp/demo', playbook='test.yml')
print("{}: {}".format(r.status, r.rc))
for each_host_event in r.events:
    print(each_host_event['event'])

Summary

Molecule is specifically designed for testing Ansible roles and playbooks, offering multiple test scenarios and platform support. It integrates well with CI/CD pipelines but has a steeper learning curve and more complex setup.

Ansible Runner, on the other hand, is a more general-purpose tool for running Ansible from Python code or the command line. It's simpler to set up and use but lacks the specialized testing features of Molecule.

Choose Molecule for comprehensive Ansible content testing, especially in CI/CD environments. Opt for Ansible Runner when you need to integrate Ansible execution into Python applications or scripts.

Pros of Ansible-lint

• Focuses on linting and best practices, improving code quality and consistency
• Provides detailed feedback on potential issues and style violations
• Can be integrated into CI/CD pipelines for automated checks

Cons of Ansible-lint

• Limited to static analysis and doesn't execute playbooks
• May produce false positives or miss context-specific issues
• Requires additional setup and maintenance compared to direct execution

Code Comparison

Ansible-lint example:

- name: Install packages
  apt:
    name: "{{ item }}"
    state: present
  loop:
    - nginx
    - postgresql

Ansible-runner example:

import ansible_runner

r = ansible_runner.run(private_data_dir='/tmp/demo', playbook='test.yml')
print("{}: {}".format(r.status, r.rc))
for each_host_event in r.events:
    print(each_host_event['event'])

Ansible-lint focuses on analyzing YAML files for potential issues, while Ansible-runner provides a programmatic interface for executing Ansible playbooks and managing their output. Ansible-lint is more suited for code quality checks, whereas Ansible-runner is designed for integrating Ansible execution into other applications or workflows.