AU245 – Configuration as Code for Enterprise Automation with Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform — Lesson 1: Configuration-as-Code Principles, Git Structure, Branches, Reviews, and Ownership

Learning Objectives

• Explain the architecture, purpose, dependencies, and expected behavior of configuration-as-code principles, Git repository structure, and branches.
• Apply reviews and ownership while preserving reviewable technical evidence.
• Recognize and correct the condition where an unstated prerequisite or ownership gap causes the initial design to be incomplete.

Detailed Topics

• configuration-as-code principles: apply the concept to the course scenario, identify dependencies and controls, and record objective evidence of the result.
• Git repository structure: apply the concept to the course scenario, identify dependencies and controls, and record objective evidence of the result.
• branches: apply the concept to the course scenario, identify dependencies and controls, and record objective evidence of the result.
• reviews: apply the concept to the course scenario, identify dependencies and controls, and record objective evidence of the result.
• ownership: apply the concept to the course scenario, identify dependencies and controls, and record objective evidence of the result.

Instructor Demonstration

The instructor demonstrates configuration-as-code principles, git structure, branches, reviews, and ownership by tracing architecture, commands, configuration, system messages, and evidence. The walkthrough tests how an unstated prerequisite or ownership gap causes the initial design to be incomplete and explains how to isolate the cause without masking related issues.

Hands-On Exercise

Establish a controlled baseline for Configuration-as-Code Principles, Git Structure, Branches, Reviews, and Ownership and add the verified result to the configuration-as-code repository, promotion workflow, automated validation, and governance checklist.

1. Confirm scope, versions, access, dependencies, assumptions, and acceptance criteria.
2. Perform the workflow while recording commands, configuration, output, events, and decisions.
3. Test the normal path and one course-specific exception or boundary condition.
4. Retest the correction and document rollback, ownership, and follow-up actions.

Scenario Analysis

• Identify which dependency most strongly influences configuration-as-code principles in the stated scenario.
• Compare two approaches for reviews and explain the security, reliability, performance, and support trade-offs.
• Decide what evidence must be retained in the configuration-as-code repository, promotion workflow, automated validation, and governance checklist before operational acceptance.

Troubleshooting Guidance

Begin with the first observable difference from the expected result. Check architecture, scope, identities, prerequisites, and starting conditions separately, then correlate logs, events, commands, metrics, and configuration history. Treat the assumption that an unstated prerequisite or ownership gap causes the initial design to be incomplete as a hypothesis until a reproducible retest confirms the cause.

Validation Checklist

• The required architecture, scope, identities, prerequisites, and starting conditions were checked and recorded.
• The normal path and a course-specific exception were tested.
• The configuration-as-code repository, promotion workflow, automated validation, and governance checklist links conclusions to commands, configuration, logs, metrics, or other objective evidence.
• Corrective actions, rollback, ownership, and handover notes are complete.

Lesson Outcome

Learners can apply Configuration-as-Code Principles, Git Structure, Branches, Reviews, and Ownership, explain the observed platform behavior, and support the result with a reviewable configuration-as-code repository, promotion workflow, automated validation, and governance checklist.