# How do you find which module version is included with an Ansible release

**URL:** <https://forum.ansible.com/t/how-do-you-find-which-module-version-is-included-with-an-ansible-release/34794>\
**Category:** Ansible Developer\
**Created:** [March 16, 2021, 6:52pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/how-do-you-find-which-module-version-is-included-with-an-ansible-release/34794 "2021-03-16T18:52:14Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nathan\_Stapp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/df705f/32.png) [@Nathan\_Stapp](https://forum.ansible.com/u/Nathan_Stapp)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2021, 6:52pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/how-do-you-find-which-module-version-is-included-with-an-ansible-release/34794/1 "2021-03-16T18:52:14Z")

</div>

I have a customer with Ansible 2.9. He is having issues with FTDAnsible module. I know there are particular issues with specific FTDAnsible modules. Is there any matrix that provides this informatoin?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/ansible/original/1X/1882d9a01da5d8996a862359b0913cc568a39b84.svg) [@system](https://forum.ansible.com/u/system)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2021, 7:04pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/how-do-you-find-which-module-version-is-included-with-an-ansible-release/34794/2 "2021-03-16T19:04:36Z")

</div>

Up to 2.9 there is no independent version of modules included in  
Ansible, after 2.10 and moving into collections you can see the  
'collection version' .. but no module version yet.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nathan\_Stapp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/df705f/32.png) [@Nathan\_Stapp](https://forum.ansible.com/u/Nathan_Stapp)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2021, 7:14pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/how-do-you-find-which-module-version-is-included-with-an-ansible-release/34794/3 "2021-03-16T19:14:10Z")

</div>

ok, so how can I empirically determine which code base of FTDAnsible was used… even if its not provided through the collections themselves… obviously the FTDAnsible repo was forked/cloned/something.

I assume the CiscoDevNet/FTDAnsible is what is serving as the root for the module in Ansible. There are only a few version released… I just need to know which one was pushed into the Ansible modules repo? I would assume some engineer knows which one they used? even if it has been modified (as you can see on Github). The issue Im having is I do not see a fork that is linked to Ansible. Does ANYONE know which version that they used for the ansible module in 2.9?

Thanks!  
-Nate

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nathan\_Stapp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/df705f/32.png) [@Nathan\_Stapp](https://forum.ansible.com/u/Nathan_Stapp)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2021, 7:53pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/how-do-you-find-which-module-version-is-included-with-an-ansible-release/34794/4 "2021-03-16T19:53:03Z")

</div>

Ok I found the cause, but still don’t have an easy way for people to figure this out.

Bottom line FTD 6.6+ will not work with the FTDAnsible module supplied with ansible.

FTDAnsible was updated on Dec 15th and 16th (and subsequently released as version v0.3.1) to accommodate a change in the FTD 6.6 Spec provided to validate the commands being sent to FTD. Since FTD 6.6 the Type field is not present. This causes FTDAnsible validation to fail.

Fixes here if you want to manually change it: [https://github.com/CiscoDevNet/FTDAnsible/commit/9ce13b31337294d6aaec733a47e13a3c2d522d54](https://github.com/CiscoDevNet/FTDAnsible/commit/9ce13b31337294d6aaec733a47e13a3c2d522d54)

What is odd is that using the “ignore errors” option makes ansible report success even though the change is not actually pushed…

Even more frustrating is it appears that the modules Ansible is using are fully copied, modified, and added to the Ansible networks collection which makes version tracking (and integrated part of github) useless in this case.

Its safe to say Ansible is likely using v0.2.2

Thanks!

-Nate
