|
[00:07] <davecheney> niemeyer: ahh, `yaml:"flow"`, might be the savation |
|
[00:08] <niemeyer> davecheney: Ah, hold on |
|
[00:08] <niemeyer> davecheney: You want to compare output? |
|
[00:08] <niemeyer> davecheney: for testing purposes? |
|
[00:09] <davecheney> niemeyer: yes |
|
[00:09] <niemeyer> davecheney: That's probably not a good direction |
|
[00:09] <niemeyer> davecheney: We've had a lot of pain comparing yaml like that |
|
[00:09] <davecheney> ok |
|
[00:09] <niemeyer> davecheney: It's easier to unmarshal the yaml back |
|
[00:10] <niemeyer> davecheney: and compare the value |
|
[00:10] <niemeyer> davecheney: This also helps because you can compare bits, rather than full docs |
|
[00:10] <davecheney> using deep equals ? |
|
[00:10] <niemeyer> davecheney: Yeah |
|
[00:10] <niemeyer> davecheney: Indentation is doable, etc |
|
[00:11] <davecheney> ok, i'll keep working on it |
|
[01:41] <davecheney> niemeyer: is this a bug ? http://play.golang.org/p/P1dQvMC9T4 |
|
[01:43] <davecheney> niemeyer: nm, the channel corrected my mistake |
|
[01:44] <niemeyer> davecheney: Yeah, no commas |
|
[06:22] <TheMue> davecheney, fwereade__, rog: morning btw |
|
[06:22] <rog> davecheney, fwereade__, TheMue: yo! |
|
[06:38] <davecheney> rog: themue, hello! |
|
[06:39] <davecheney> rog: https://codereview.appspot.com/6432045 if you have any comments on the test harness |
|
[06:39] <davecheney> i would be glad to hear them |
|
[06:40] <davecheney> testing json and yaml is a pain the butt |
|
[06:40] <davecheney> but at least this way, it isn't a pain in the butt when we're pressed for time and someone points out json output is manditory |
|
[06:43] * rog looks |
|
[06:46] <rog> davecheney: i wonder if we should use MarshalIndent to produce nice looking json. just a thought. |
|
[06:47] <davecheney> rog: sure |
|
[06:47] <rog> davecheney: also, i wonder if the status tests could just specify the value of the data structure required; then we could unmarshal the output (in whatever format we want to check) and make sure it deep equals the |
|
[06:48] <rog> required value |
|
[06:48] <davecheney> rog: tried that, didn't wokr |
|
[06:48] <rog> davecheney: ah, because the unmarshal differently? |
|
[06:48] <rog> theyt |
|
[06:48] <rog> they |
|
[06:48] <rog> :-) |
|
[06:48] <davecheney> yes, json produces map[string]interface{} |
|
[06:48] <davecheney> yaml produces map[interface{}]interface{} |
|
[06:49] <rog> davecheney: hmm, but can't you unmarshal into a data structure of the expected kind? |
|
[06:50] <davecheney> rog: yes, but then the next level down becomes m[i]i |
|
[06:51] <rog> m[i]i ? |
|
[06:51] <rog> oh yeah |
|
[06:51] <rog> hmm |
|
[06:51] <davecheney> i don't think it's solveable |
|
[06:52] <davecheney> anyway, that is enough to start mergeing in my working branches |
|
[06:52] <davecheney> and if the harness is uttery wrong |
|
[06:52] <davecheney> then i'll tackle it then |
|
[06:54] <rog> davecheney: one last thought: could you start with the expected data structure, then marshal it and unmarshal it again, *then* check against the original unmarshalled value you got? |
|
[06:55] <davecheney> or marshal it, and compare it to the data in cxt.Stdout |
|
[06:55] <rog> davecheney: no, that won't work |
|
[06:55] <davecheney> why not |
|
[06:55] <rog> davecheney: because marshalling isn't deterministic |
|
[06:56] <davecheney> for json it is, but i take your point |
|
[06:56] <rog> davecheney: oh really, json sorts map keys? cool, i didn't know that. |
|
[06:56] <davecheney> gustavo argued that goayml can do the same thing |
|
[06:56] <davecheney> i'm going to hvae to change goyaml slightly anyway |
|
[06:56] <rog> davecheney: it would make life easier |
|
[06:57] <rog> davecheney: and json is a good precedent |
|
[06:57] * davecheney thinks that json is about as crack headed as javascript |
|
[06:57] <davecheney> for example, struct { Machines map[int]interface{} } |
|
[06:57] <davecheney> cannot be json marshalled |
|
[06:57] <davecheney> yet _must_ be marshalled by yaml |
|
[06:58] <davecheney> so, because of that, i have to conver machine.Id to a string, then change goyaml to accept a formatting flag to convert the string keys back to ints |
|
[06:58] <rog> davecheney: oh that's a pity |
|
[06:59] <davecheney> anyway, dinner time |
|
[06:59] <davecheney> then i'll ponder your idea |
|
[06:59] <davecheney> if that means we describe the output once, that is a big win |
|
[07:00] <rog> davecheney: given what you've said above, i'm not sure it can work. |
|
[07:00] <rog> davecheney: pity machine ids aren't strings |
|
[07:04] <TheMue> rog: Let the Firewaller only use a passed state has been a nice simplification, but how do I get the environment now. Somehow lost the path. |
|
[07:05] <rog> TheMue: ha ha. you'll need to pass the environment in as an argument too. |
|
[07:05] <TheMue> rog: sh** |
|
[07:06] <TheMue> rog: Already expected it *sigh* |
|
[07:11] <TheMue> rog: Btw, on Sunday, do we try to get seats next to each other or do we just meet at the baggage claim? |
|
[07:11] <rog> TheMue: it would be nice to sit together, but i can't quite work out how :-) |
|
[07:12] <fwereade_> morning all |
|
[07:12] <TheMue> rog: That's the problem. |
|
[07:12] <TheMue> fwereade_: Morining |
|
[07:12] <rog> TheMue: except, i guess, we can try to arrive at the checkin desk together... but most seats are gone by then. |
|
[07:12] <rog> TheMue: i have an idea |
|
[07:13] * TheMue listens |
|
[07:13] <rog> TheMue: i won't have access to a computer, but perhaps i could give you my booking details and you could try and select a seat for both of us on the airline website |
|
[07:13] <rog> TheMue: in fact, perhaps they allow us to choose a seat now. i'll have a look. |
|
[07:13] <TheMue> rog: That could work |
|
[07:20] <TheMue> rog: Your Environ.OpenPorts() wants all ports that have to be open or just a delta that should be opened with this action? |
|
[07:21] <rog> TheMue: just a delta |
|
[07:21] <TheMue> rog: Good |
|
[07:21] <rog> TheMue: otherwise there wouldn't be a ClosePorts method :) |
|
[07:21] <TheMue> rog: Makes it more simple |
|
[07:21] <TheMue> rog: Sounds logical :D |
|
[07:21] <rog> TheMue: yeah, i toyed with both approaches, but this seemed better |
|
[07:22] <TheMue> rog: Yes, otherwise I would have to maintain a list of all open ports on a machine inside the firewaller. Now I just tell you to open it. |
|
[07:22] <rog> TheMue: yeah |
|
[07:25] <TheMue> rog: Hmm, if a port can't be opened (so you return an error), how hard is this error? I could do a panic, but that wouldn't be helpful. Better would be a kind of retry. |
|
[07:26] <rog> TheMue: yeah, it's a good question. |
|
[07:26] <rog> TheMue: not very hard, i'd say |
|
[07:26] <rog> TheMue: perhaps you could put the retry in later, to avoid cluttering the initial logic |
|
[07:27] <TheMue> rog: But have to leave now until noon, some shopping with Carmen. We can talk later again. |
|
[07:27] <TheMue> rog: So far I'll ad a TODO, yes |
|
[07:54] <asachs_> Hello all |
|
[08:12] <fwereade_> asachs_, hi |
|
[08:12] <fwereade_> everyone, sorry, I have to pop out for 30 mins |
|
[08:12] <fwereade_> bbs |
|
[09:05] <asachs_> anyone seen a MaaS based bootstrap fail to install zookeeper ? |
|
[09:13] <fwereade_> asachs_, not offhand; can you ssh into the instance at all? |
|
[09:13] <asachs_> fwereade_: yeah i could - but no zookeeper installed :( |
|
[09:14] * fwereade_ desperately tries to remember where cloudinit logs to |
|
[09:15] <fwereade_> asachs_, can you take a look at /var/log/cloud-init-output.log on the instance? |
|
[09:15] <rog> fwereade_, asachs_: /var/log/cloud-init.log |
|
[09:15] <fwereade_> rog, ah ok |
|
[09:15] <rog> fwereade_, asachs_: also, perhaps: cloud-init-output.log |
|
[09:17] <rog> fwereade_: here's a script i use occasionally for debugging, which automatically copies the logs from an instance to my local machine: http://paste.ubuntu.com/1101520/ |
|
[09:17] <fwereade_> rog, nice :) |
|
[09:37] <rog> fwereade_: wanna swap a book or two again? |
|
[09:39] <fwereade_> rog, I'll see if I can find something worth reading :) |
|
[09:49] <davecheney> rog: can you paste that link again please ? |
|
[09:51] <rog> davecheney: which link? |
|
[09:51] <davecheney> the one you emailed me |
|
[09:51] <davecheney> play.g.o |
|
[09:52] <rog> davecheney: http://play.golang.org/p/AMq8qURfBW |
|
[09:53] <davecheney> ta |
|
[10:39] <asachs_> rog: thanks - its for a maas setup so the ec2 stuff will not work so nice :) |
|
[10:41] <rog> asachs_: np. it should be easy enough to port the concept though, if you want. i doubt you have the rc shell installed anyway :-) |
|
[10:42] <asachs_> rog: it looks fairly straightforward, will have a go at it once my new MAAS server is up |
|
[10:42] <asachs_> rog: and thx |
|
[10:42] <rog> asachs_: tbh, i usually ended up doing ssh and tail -f for a more interactive view. |
|
[11:30] <rog> fwereade_: i wonder if you might take a look at this and see whether it seems reasonable. i haven't yet done the extra tests in the juju package, but the cmd/juju test suite passes: https://codereview.appspot.com/6428061/ |
|
[11:32] <fwereade_> rog, very shortly, have much state loaded atm |
|
[11:32] <rog> fwereade_: np |
|
[11:33] <rog> fwereade_: it's fairly trivial refactoring, nothing substantial |
|
[11:33] <fwereade_> rog, cool |
|
=== TheMue_ is now known as TheMue |
|
[12:12] <rog> just off for lunch, then travelling this afternoon - i'll probably leave here in a couple of hours |
|
[12:12] <TheMue> rog: enjoy |
|
[13:12] <fwereade> rog, ok, I am at last on your review, lunch intruded |
|
[13:12] <fwereade> rog, sorry |
|
[13:20] <rog> fwereade: it's still WIP BTW |
|
[13:21] <rog> fwereade: 3 possible books: Crystal Rain (Tobias Buckell), Harmony (Project Itoh) and Wolf Hall (Hilary Mantel). read any of 'em? |
|
[13:24] <fwereade> rog, none of them :) |
|
[13:24] <rog> fwereade: last one's historical rather than sf, but great anyway |
|
[13:27] <fwereade> rog, excellent |
|
[13:27] <fwereade> rog, what's your general view of bleak sprawling messed-up fantasy? |
|
[13:28] <fwereade> rog, reviewed btw |
|
[13:30] <fwereade> rog, and I did the linked list thing with HookQueue and I think it worked out really nicely |
|
[13:30] <fwereade> rog, so many thanks for that |
|
[13:30] <fwereade> rog, https://codereview.appspot.com/6422049 |
|
[13:31] <fwereade> rog, nothing is O(1) though |
|
[13:31] <fwereade> rog, Add is O(len(changed_units)) |
|
[13:31] <TheMue> rog: I have some troubles with http://paste.ubuntu.com/1087489/, line 41 ff. |
|
[13:31] <fwereade> rog, Next is O(len(members)) |
|
[13:32] <fwereade> rog, but those are both better than before :) |
|
[13:33] <TheMue> rog: It seems like your outline iterates twice over the change (which is the list of open ports). |
|
[13:37] <rog> fwereade: last night i couldn't resist seeing what the linked list idea might look like; i was going to throw it away, but... http://paste.ubuntu.com/1101809/ |
|
[13:38] * rog is trying desperately to pack |
|
[13:40] <fwereade> rog, I'm afraid I really can't judge it without tests ;) |
|
[13:40] <rog> fwereade: indeed |
|
[13:51] <niemeyer> Good mornings! |
|
[13:52] <fwereade> niemeyer, heyhey |
|
[13:53] <TheMue> niemeyer: Moin |
|
[13:53] <niemeyer> Heyas! |
|
[13:55] <rog> niemeyer: yo! i'm heading to the airport in 25 mins... |
|
[13:56] <niemeyer> rog: Oh, going to Lisbon already? |
|
[14:07] <rog> niemeyer: first leg only. laying over for the weekend with some university pals in amsterdam (planned ages and ages ago, and cut short a bit by the sprint). |
|
[14:07] <niemeyer> rog: Ah, nice |
|
[14:08] <niemeyer> rog: Have some good fun there |
|
[14:08] <rog> niemeyer: should be fun. at least one of them i haven't seen for 20 years |
|
[14:08] <niemeyer> rog: WOah |
|
[14:08] <rog> niemeyer: i'll try not to arrive too hungover! |
|
[14:08] <niemeyer> rog: Have you graduated 20 years ago!? 8) |
|
[14:08] <rog> niemeyer: old bugger, me |
|
[14:09] <niemeyer> rog: LOL |
|
[14:10] <rog> niemeyer, fwereade, TheMue: right, i'm off. might be online for a bit from the airport though. |
|
[14:10] <rog> otherwise see y'all in lisbon! |
|
[14:10] <rog> i'm looking forward to it! |
|
[14:10] <fwereade> rog, have fun! |
|
[14:10] <TheMue> rog: Enjoy, we'll see at least at Lisbon airport |
|
[14:10] <niemeyer> rog: Indeed! |
|
[14:10] <niemeyer> rog: Have fun! |
|
[14:10] <rog> toodle pip |
|
[14:19] <niemeyer> fwereade: So, the validation stuff is up for review |
|
[14:19] <fwereade> niemeyer, I'm reading it now, it looks *awesome* so far |
|
[14:21] <niemeyer> fwereade: Very glad (and relieved :-) to hear it |
|
[14:25] <fwereade> niemeyer, LGTM, but I think control-bucket should also be immutable |
|
[14:26] <niemeyer> fwereade: Is it not? |
|
[14:26] <fwereade> niemeyer, huh, couldn't see it |
|
[14:26] * fwereade reads again |
|
[14:26] <fwereade> niemeyer, it's not mentioned in Validate |
|
[14:27] <fwereade> niemeyer, did you do something clever? |
|
[14:27] <niemeyer> fwereade: Isn't that awesome? :-) |
|
[14:27] <niemeyer> fwereade: Oh, wait |
|
[14:27] <fwereade> niemeyer, but the structure of it all is perfect |
|
[14:27] <niemeyer> fwereade: You mean immutable as in cannot be changed from old to cfg |
|
[14:27] <niemeyer> Okay |
|
[14:27] <fwereade> niemeyer, yeah, sorry |
|
[14:28] <niemeyer> fwereade: I read that as in *config.Config is immutable |
|
[14:28] <niemeyer> fwereade: WE don't ever change, or even reference, control-bucket within Validate |
|
[14:28] <fwereade> niemeyer, nah, Config seems fine to me :) |
|
[14:28] <niemeyer> fwereade: Which is what I claimed is awesome |
|
[14:28] <fwereade> niemeyer, ohhhhh |
|
[14:28] <fwereade> niemeyer, hmmmmm |
|
[14:29] <fwereade> niemeyer, can't quite decide whether that's awesome or evil |
|
[14:29] <niemeyer> fwereade: But, you're right I think.. we shouldn't allow the control-bucket to change, at least for now |
|
[14:29] <niemeyer> fwereade: Really? |
|
[14:29] <niemeyer> fwereade: Why would it be evil? The schema is doing the whole validation for us |
|
[14:30] <fwereade> niemeyer, sorry, I misunderstood what you said |
|
[14:30] <fwereade> niemeyer, not to worry :) |
|
[14:30] <niemeyer> fwereade: Cool :-) |
|
[14:34] <fwereade> niemeyer, a suggestion: we should store relation resolved nodes under the relation (like settings and presence), not under the unit |
|
[14:35] <fwereade> niemeyer, (and we should do the same for the workflow nodes, if they're not already there, which I don't immediately recall) |
|
[14:35] <fwereade> niemeyer, oh, hmm, maybe that's problematic |
|
[14:35] * fwereade goes off to read code |
|
[14:36] <niemeyer> fwereade: I do think there's an awesometastic potential for simplifying things in that state machine, but indeed we have to think through the error management |
|
[14:38] <niemeyer> fwereade: "If it's worth checking for a missing endpoint (as we do in Open) I maintain it's worth checking for here rather than there :)." |
|
[14:38] <fwereade> niemeyer, ...but it turns out you dropped that check entirely, and I'm fine with that |
|
[14:38] <niemeyer> fwereade: Part of the beauty is that this is now done in both locations, and in SetConfig |
|
[14:38] <fwereade> niemeyer, oh? sorry, where? |
|
[14:38] <niemeyer> fwereade: I haven't dropped it.. this branch actually *increases* validation significantly, perhaps to my surprise also :-) |
|
[14:39] <niemeyer> fwereade: There's a single code path to grab an ecfg |
|
[14:39] <niemeyer> fwereade: and it validate |
|
[14:39] <niemeyer> s |
|
[14:40] <fwereade> niemeyer, there's also a funny little bit in Open, that you deleted, that checks the EC2Endpoint on the chosen region |
|
[14:40] <fwereade> niemeyer, I don;t see EC2Endpoint anywhere else in the diff |
|
[14:41] <niemeyer> fwereade: Oh? |
|
[14:41] <fwereade> niemeyer, but I don't really see why we should need to check it in the first place |
|
[14:41] <niemeyer> fwereade: Where is that? |
|
[14:41] <fwereade> niemeyer, https://codereview.appspot.com/6416055/diff/4001/environs/ec2/ec2.go#oldcode117 |
|
[14:41] <niemeyer> fwereade: Oh, sorry |
|
[14:41] <niemeyer> fwereade: I did misread that code |
|
[14:42] <niemeyer> fwereade: I've read the error message, and inferred the test |
|
[14:42] <niemeyer> fwereade: If the region exists in aws.Region, I claim we can use it |
|
[14:43] <niemeyer> fwereade: We're not checking S3Endpoint, for example |
|
[14:43] <fwereade> niemeyer, agreed |
|
[14:43] <niemeyer> fwereade: Thanks, though, I did miss the real test |
|
[14:43] <fwereade> niemeyer, I don't think that bit ever had an explicit test anyway |
|
[14:44] <niemeyer> fwereade: Indeed |
|
[14:44] <niemeyer> fwereade: I'll add the control-bucket check |
|
[14:44] <fwereade> niemeyer, cool |
|
[14:46] <fwereade> niemeyer, btw, I added those methods to Relation, in https://codereview.appspot.com/6430055/ |
|
[14:46] <fwereade> niemeyer, and in the CL I suggest that maybe they should be on Unit |
|
[14:47] <fwereade> niemeyer, but in *fact* I now think a RelationUnit type, which just holds the stuff we repeatedly calculate in Relation.unitScope, is really the right place for them |
|
[14:48] <fwereade> niemeyer, (*Relation)Unit(*Unit) (*RelationUnit, error) |
|
[14:48] <fwereade> niemeyer, (*RelationUnit) Watch() (*presence.Pinger, error) |
|
[14:48] <fwereade> niemeyer, (*RelationUnit) Settings() (*ConfigNode, error) |
|
[14:48] <fwereade> niemeyer, (*RelationUnit) Watch() (*RelationUnitsWatcher, error) |
|
[14:49] <fwereade> niemeyer, and then... |
|
[14:49] <fwereade> niemeyer, something a bit like (*RelationUnit) WaitResolved() (<-chan bool, error) |
|
[14:50] <fwereade> niemeyer, and similar methods for Workflow etc etc |
|
[14:50] <fwereade> niemeyer, would you be OK with that? |
|
[14:51] <fwereade> niemeyer, sorry, way up there, s/unitScope/unitInfo/ |
|
[14:53] <fwereade> (what the hell, how is it 5pm? time flies :)) |
|
[14:53] <niemeyer> fwereade: I'm on the fence about it, mostly because I don't see the actual benefit and do see increased API surface, and even usage burden (e..g you now must check error twice to reach a Relation's Settings). |
|
[14:54] <niemeyer> fwereade: Do you see simplification on the implementation? And if so, can you describe a bit of it? |
|
[14:55] <fwereade> niemeyer, the benefit IMO is that we don't need to pass a Relation and a Unit around everywhere we're dealing with the relation lifecycle |
|
[14:55] <fwereade> niemeyer, I think it'll also have methods like Workflow and SetResolved and so forth |
|
[14:56] <fwereade> niemeyer, which would be icky on Unit (because it will want stuff like that itself) |
|
[14:56] <niemeyer> fwereade: Sounds sensible |
|
[14:56] <niemeyer> fwereade: +1 |
|
[14:56] <fwereade> niemeyer, and the big issue with the current form is (*Relation)Watch(*Unit), which *really* looks like we're watching a unit |
|
[14:57] <niemeyer> fwereade: Agreed.. I dislike that too |
|
[14:57] <niemeyer> fwereade: It's also nice that we can have an *actual* Relation.Watch method, taking no parameters |
|
[14:57] <niemeyer> fwereade: That doesn't ignore any units |
|
[14:57] <fwereade> niemeyer, ooh, nice |
|
[14:57] <niemeyer> fwereade: I'm looking forward to use that in a monitoring tool :-) |
|
[14:58] <fwereade> niemeyer, ok, I'll wip that and make the change |
|
[14:58] <niemeyer> fwereade: Thanks a lot |
|
[14:58] <fwereade> niemeyer, but https://codereview.appspot.com/6422049/ is also ready(?) and I think it's pretty cool actually |
|
[14:59] <fwereade> niemeyer, it lacks the occasional pathological performance characteristics of the first one |
|
[14:59] <fwereade> niemeyer, I think :) |
|
[15:01] <niemeyer> fwereade: Sweet, will have a look |
|
[15:02] <niemeyer> Actually, I'll review that first thing in the afternoon if that's ok |
|
[15:02] <fwereade> niemeyer, no rush :) |
|
[15:03] <fwereade> niemeyer, I have two nicely complementary streams of work at the moment, both UA related, and easy to switch between |
|
[15:03] <fwereade> niemeyer, when they collide I'll be screaming for reviews, so take it easy while you can ;) |
|
[15:04] <niemeyer> fwereade: LOL |
|
[15:04] <niemeyer> fwereade: Sweet |
|
[15:36] <rog> fwereade: is there any particular reason that StartUnit should be StartUnits? it's trivial for the caller to write a for loop, and it means that the caller can decide what to do if one fails after several have succeeded. |
|
[15:37] <fwereade> rog, just seems more appropriate for a high-level interface somehow |
|
[15:38] <fwereade> rog, matter of taste, not really bothered, we'll find out what we really need later |
|
[15:39] <rog> fwereade: if we were going to potentially optimise AddUnits(n) so that it wasn't just a simple for loop around AddUnit, i think i'd agree. but otherwise i can't see the point. |
|
[15:39] <rog> fwereade: it's not *that* high level - we assume the caller can program :-) |
|
[15:39] <fwereade> rog, that's what I kinda think we should be doing :) |
|
[15:40] <rog> fwereade: yeah, ok, will go for AddUnits then |
|
[15:41] <rog> fwereade: then if the state API changes to allow a more efficient approach, the juju API can remain the same |
|
[15:41] <fwereade> rog, yeah, exactly |
|
[15:42] <fwereade> rog, niemeyer: hey, why does AddUnitSubordinateTo exist? |
|
[15:42] <rog> fwereade: and one approach to that would be to add AddUnits to the state API and not download the charm for every unit! probably a better approach than caching |
|
[15:43] <niemeyer> fwereade: Hm? |
|
[15:43] <fwereade> rog, niemeyer: should this not be handled at AddUnit time, with something like Service.Subordinates()? |
|
[15:43] <fwereade> rog, niemeyer: anyway, total derail really, but I can't see any benefit to exposing the functionality |
|
[15:43] <rog> fwereade: i guess it depends what level you see the state API |
|
[15:44] <rog> fwereade: i see it as potentially allowing things outside the scope of what is allowed in the high level juju view |
|
[15:44] <fwereade> rog, regardless of level, I'm not sure it should let us do things that aren't internally consistent |
|
[15:45] <fwereade> rog, without the appropriate relations in place, isn't it straight-up nonsensical to try to do that? |
|
[15:45] <niemeyer> fwereade: Yeah, could be internalized I guess |
|
[15:45] <fwereade> rog, niemeyer: one for our Copious Free Time, I think, anyway ;) |
|
[15:45] <rog> fwereade: i think i agree |
|
[15:45] <niemeyer> fwereade: It doesn't let us do things that aren't internally consistent already, but if we can simplify it that's a bonus |
|
[15:59] <niemeyer> fwereade: I've added the control-bucket stuff and re-proposed.. if all looks good will submit once I'm back from lunch |
|
[16:00] <fwereade> niemeyer, cool, I'll take a look |
|
[16:01] <fwereade> niemeyer, just unwipped https://codereview.appspot.com/6430055 |
|
[16:01] <fwereade> niemeyer, according to how the tests feel, it was a good move :) |
|
[16:01] <niemeyer> fwereade: Sweet! |
|
[16:02] <fwereade> niemeyer, dammit, I'm meant to be going out and having fun this evening ;p |
|
[16:03] <mramm2> fwereade: no rest for the wicked! |
|
[16:03] <fwereade> mramm2, haha |
|
=== imbrandon is now known as Guest41572 |
|
[16:04] <niemeyer> fwereade: You really should :-) |
|
[16:04] <fwereade> niemeyer, oh, I will, but it's really inconvenient right now :) |
|
[16:04] <niemeyer> fwereade: Next week we'll have tons of time together to push awesomeness forward :) |
|
[16:05] <niemeyer> fwereade: LOL |
|
[16:05] <niemeyer> fwereade: I know how that feels |
|
[16:05] <niemeyer> fwereade: I was hacking until post midnight yesterday |
|
[16:05] <niemeyer> fwereade: Hard to stop when in a roll :) |
|
[16:05] <fwereade> niemeyer, yeah :) |
|
[16:14] <fwereade> TheMue, ping |
|
=== Guest41572 is now known as imbrandon |
|
[16:15] <TheMue> fwereade: mom |
|
=== imbrandon is now known as imbrandon_ |
|
[16:16] <fwereade> TheMue, it always disturbs me when you call me mom :) |
|
[16:16] <TheMue> fwereade: You're to me like a mom ;) |
|
[16:16] <fwereade> TheMue, aww :) |
|
[16:16] <fwereade> TheMue, well, all right darling |
|
=== imbrandon_ is now known as imbrandon |
|
[16:20] <fwereade> TheMue, (I'll ask now; but no rush, please just respond when you're ready, I might have to go in a sec, I'll see your response later) |
|
[16:20] <fwereade> TheMue, I'm getting a slight urge to do violence to the ResolvedMode stuff |
|
[16:21] <fwereade> TheMue, (1) I don't think we have any need for the 1000/1001 magic numbers |
|
[16:22] <fwereade> TheMue, (2) I don't think we have any need for anything other than SetResolved, ClearResolved, and WaitResolved() (retry bool, err error) |
|
[16:23] <fwereade> TheMue, ie I can't see a use case for WatchResolved; am I missing something? |
|
[16:24] <fwereade> TheMue, (hmm, actually, what I'd *really* like is a one-shot <-chan bool watch, I think it will mesh very nicely with my plans for the hook executor) |
|
[16:24] <fwereade> TheMue, anyway, let me know your thoughts |
|
[16:24] <fwereade> niemeyer, I would also appreciate your perspective on the above |
|
[16:26] <fwereade> I'm thinking that I want, on both Unit and RelationUnit: |
|
[16:26] <fwereade> SetResolved(retry bool) error |
|
[16:26] <fwereade> ClearResolved() error |
|
[16:27] <fwereade> WaitResolved() (retry <-chan bool, err error) |
|
[16:27] <fwereade> but ofc I'm open to mockery and dismissal :) |
|
[16:27] <fwereade> anyway, later all |
|
[16:29] <fwereade> niemeyer, (also, am I right in thinking that we can't separately resolve errors in relations of the same name? is this deliberate, or am I misreading juju/control/resolved.py?) |
|
[16:36] <TheMue> fwereade: So, back again. Our daughter had problems today. |
|
[16:37] <mramm2> TheMue: sorry to hear about that |
|
[16:38] <TheMue> oops |
|
[16:39] <fwereade> TheMue, no worries, I might be able to pop back and read in 5-10 mins |
|
[16:39] <fwereade> TheMue, hope all is ok now |
|
[16:40] <TheMue> mramm2: Thankfully it's not her direct problem. It a harder problem by her best girl friend. But now our daughter has problems with her employer because she came later to the afternoon stint |
|
[16:41] <TheMue> fwereade: Yes, it's ok. Thx. |
|
[16:42] <TheMue> fwereade: So you're looking if the ResolvedMode is needed? Or what is your question? |
|
[16:43] <TheMue> fwereade: I've translated it from the python code, but if we don't need it anymore we should remove it. |
|
[16:50] <fwereade> TheMue, sorry, I'm really just asking if you're aware of any uses for it that I may have missed |
|
[16:50] <fwereade> TheMue, that can't be covered by what I proposed |
|
[16:50] <fwereade> TheMue, or if there's anything otherwise obviously ludicrous about what I suggest |
|
[16:52] <TheMue> fwereade: Right now I don't know. I'll take a look. |
|
[16:55] <TheMue> fwereade: So far it's not used, yes. I only ported it without looking who later will use it. |
|
[16:57] <TheMue> fwereade: In Py it's used by the agent. |
|
[17:26] <niemeyer> fwereade: Hah.. so I screwed up the copy & paste.. |
|
[17:26] <niemeyer> That's what I get for not self-reviewing |
|
[18:27] <TheMue> So, next proposal for the firewaller is in and I'm out. If we don't see tomorrow evening here we'll see on Sunday in Lisbon. |
|
[18:27] <TheMue> Have a nice evening. |
|
[18:37] <niemeyer> TheMue: Thanks, have a great trip! |
|
[18:38] <TheMue> niemeyer: Thx, yes, and you have a great trip too. Will be a long flight. |
|
[18:42] <niemeyer> TheMue: Thanks, this one is going to be surprisingly good, actually |
|
[18:42] <niemeyer> TheMue: A single leg.. first time ever |
|
[18:42] <TheMue> niemeyer: Yeah, so it's a good location. Only Dave will always ever have problems. |
|
[18:43] <TheMue> niemeyer: So we once should visit him. |
|
[18:43] <TheMue> :D |
|
[18:43] <niemeyer> TheMue: True :-) |
|
[18:44] <TheMue> niemeyer: Next UDS is very near. I'm already ching if not train will be better. |
|
[18:44] <niemeyer> TheMue: Nice, that should be a breeze indeed |
|
[18:45] <TheMue> niemeyer: Yes, but that's still some month in front. Let's face our sprint next week. |
|
[18:45] <niemeyer> TheMue: Yeah, and I have nightmareish trip before that, in early August |
|
[18:45] <niemeyer> 4 legs each way.. :-( |
|
[18:46] <TheMue> niemeyer: Ouch |
|
|