|
[00:07] <jw4> davecheney: okay |
|
[00:07] <jw4> davecheney: I'll leave it as is for now, but we may want to revisit names package I guess |
|
[00:07] <davecheney> i want to shoot that in the head |
|
[00:08] <davecheney> having api types in a seperate repo is just a mistake |
|
[00:08] <davecheney> tags are api types |
|
[00:08] <davecheney> they belong in the api |
|
[00:08] <davecheney> my rule of thumb is, if you have to import two pacakges to use the functionality from one package, then they should be combined |
|
[00:08] <jw4> davecheney: can't we just pull them back in to api now that we've cleaned up the api packages? |
|
[00:09] <jw4> davecheney: that names package is tiny and maintining it is a pita |
|
[00:11] <davecheney> jw4: raise an issue |
|
[00:11] <davecheney> id' +1 that PR if you did it |
|
[00:11] <jw4> kk |
|
[00:11] <davecheney> in the past it wasn't clear that the names, or specificlly tags |
|
[00:11] <davecheney> were an api type |
|
[00:12] <davecheney> despite what fwereade keeps telling us |
|
[00:12] <jw4> :D |
|
[00:12] <davecheney> but, now we're had the clue bat applied |
|
[00:12] <davecheney> it is clear that tags are api params |
|
[00:12] <davecheney> so if you were to attempt that, it would be great |
|
[00:12] <davecheney> id' do it like this |
|
[00:12] <davecheney> 1. delete juju/names from your GOPATH |
|
[00:12] <davecheney> copy all the Tags types to apiserver/params |
|
[00:13] <davecheney> keep hitting things with sed til it works |
|
[00:13] <jw4> davecheney: +1 |
|
[00:21] <jw4> davecheney: of course if we do that it seems even more important to not include the Tag types in the state package... |
|
[00:22] <jw4> issue raised: lp-1392537 |
|
[00:25] <davecheney> urgh |
|
[00:25] <davecheney> fuck |
|
[00:25] <davecheney> forgot that |
|
[00:26] * davecheney throws a shoe |
|
[00:26] <jw4> hehe |
|
[00:26] <perrito666> <austin powers> who throws a shoe? |
|
[00:27] <perrito666> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an0bVaTjF_Y |
|
[00:28] <thumper> um... what's this about state not using names? |
|
[00:28] <jw4> oh, oh. now we're gonna catch it |
|
[00:29] <thumper> tags aren't entirely api types |
|
[00:29] <thumper> when an entity has a tag, and the entities come from state |
|
[00:30] <thumper> then you need to pull them up out into a common library |
|
[00:30] <thumper> which is what juju/names is |
|
[00:30] <thumper> what's the problem? |
|
[00:30] <thumper> ideally... |
|
[00:30] <jw4> so then the dependency graph of state has to include juju/names as an acceptable dependency (obviously) |
|
[00:30] <thumper> tags would live closer to the business types |
|
[00:31] <thumper> no, I think it is a necessary dependency |
|
[00:31] <jw4> thumper: as in 'shadow' or 'mirror' business types in the API layer? |
|
[00:31] <thumper> jw4: later... |
|
[00:32] <jw4> thumper: kk |
|
[00:33] <thumper> davecheney: please don't bother removing juju/names dep from state at this stage |
|
[00:34] <thumper> davecheney: there are other fish to gut |
|
[00:36] <jw4> perrito666: just watched that clip - funny :) |
|
[00:47] <davecheney> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-dev/sckirqOWepg |
|
[00:48] <davecheney> thumper: understood |
|
[01:15] <thumper> P.S. For those keeping score, this will be Go version control system number four. Go development started in Subversion, moved to Perforce, then Mercurial, and soon to Git. |
|
[01:15] <thumper> at least we only used two |
|
[01:20] <rick_h_> thumper: :) |
|
[01:20] <rick_h_> thumper: aren't you glad you practiced your git and got ahead of the game now? |
|
[01:21] <thumper> shuddup |
|
[01:21] * thumper is moving private project from bzr to git |
|
[01:21] <thumper> for reasons |
|
[01:25] <davecheney> Moving DVCS hosting as a Service! |
|
[01:52] <mwhudson> davecheney: launchpad used to do that! |
|
[01:53] <mwhudson> well still does i guess |
|
[02:01] <thumper> :-) |
|
[02:01] <thumper> davecheney: so... I have a question |
|
[02:01] <thumper> and I think the answer is "don't do that" |
|
[02:02] <thumper> but... |
|
[02:02] <thumper> if I have an error |
|
[02:02] <thumper> but it is a typed nil |
|
[02:02] <thumper> how do I check that the pointer is nil? |
|
[02:02] <thumper> because I can't check nil |
|
[02:03] <thumper> I'm trying to make the library robust to stupid people |
|
[02:03] * thumper is guessing reflect package |
|
[02:06] <thumper> reflect.ValueOf(err).IsNil() works |
|
[02:06] <perrito666> thumper: can you not test for stupid users? |
|
[02:07] <davecheney> thumper: hmm |
|
[02:07] <davecheney> gimme a sec |
|
[02:07] <davecheney> reflect is one way |
|
[02:07] <davecheney> can you show me the code path ? |
|
[02:07] <thumper> I'm writing the code path :-) |
|
[02:08] <thumper> lemmie pastebin it |
|
[02:08] <davecheney> k |
|
[02:08] <thumper> http://paste.ubuntu.com/8996904/ |
|
[02:08] <thumper> so... I'm trying to make this robust for a nil error |
|
[02:08] <thumper> even a typed nil |
|
[02:09] <thumper> without the nil check, a typed nil supports the interface |
|
[02:09] <thumper> so we need the nil check as well |
|
[02:09] <thumper> perrito666: not easily |
|
[02:14] <perrito666> few things make me happier than trimming loads of lines of code... perhaps some medicine for my cold would |
|
[02:15] <davecheney> thumper: |
|
[02:16] * thumper waits |
|
[02:16] <davecheney> err, ok := err.(ErrorStacker); if ok && err != ErrorStacker{} |
|
[02:16] <davecheney> ^ guess |
|
[02:16] <thumper> davecheney: but ErrorStacker is an interface |
|
[02:16] <davecheney> then youre secrewed |
|
[02:16] <thumper> reflect FTW |
|
[02:16] <davecheney> sorry |
|
[02:35] <davecheney> https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/1134 |
|
[02:35] <davecheney> small, hoefully uncontraversial change |
|
[03:17] <thumper> first of three error and logging methods: |
|
[03:17] <thumper> https://github.com/juju/errors/pull/13 |
|
[03:29] <thumper> https://github.com/juju/loggo/pull/6 |
|
[03:30] <thumper> https://github.com/juju/testing/pull/38 |
|
[03:31] <thumper> once these are merged, we can add dependencies to juju and take advantage of them |
|
[03:31] <thumper> another friday, another kid off to brownie camp |
|
[03:31] * thumper away for now |
|
[03:31] <thumper> cheers folks |
|
=== kadams54 is now known as kadams54-away |
|
[03:40] <davecheney> does anyone know how to do a stacked review on rbt ? |
|
[03:40] <davecheney> can it do that ? |
|
[03:44] <davecheney> ping, http://reviews.vapour.ws/r/436/ |
|
[03:55] <axw> davecheney: you can do pass "--parent" to rbt post |
|
[03:55] <davecheney> axw how does that work with the bot that auto generates PRs ? |
|
[03:55] <axw> not 100%, but I *think* you can do it after it's already been proposed |
|
[03:56] <davecheney> i'll give it a go |
|
[03:56] <axw> davecheney: also, LGTM on your rename branch |
|
[03:56] <davecheney> i'll just merge then |
|
[03:56] <davecheney> ta |
|
[03:57] <davecheney> axw the next branch is far more intersting that a search + replace |
|
[04:00] <davecheney> axw: fyi https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/1137 |
|
[04:05] <axw> a little more than I have time to review right now, but the description sounds nice |
|
[04:05] <davecheney> kk |
|
[04:05] <davecheney> that's about it from me for today |
|
[04:05] <davecheney> one or two more cleanup branches then things are looking a lot better |
|
[04:08] <ericsnow> davecheney: were you going to sort out the dependency issues causes by state/backups.go? |
|
[04:09] <ericsnow> davecheney: I figured the most straight-forward thing would be to basically move it into state/backups. |
|
[04:11] <davecheney> ericsnow: yes, the issue is assigned to me |
|
[04:11] <jw4> name package refactor for beginning migration of Actions to using UUID identifiers : https://github.com/juju/names/pull/31 |
|
[04:11] <ericsnow> davecheney: okay |
|
[04:11] <wallyworld> davecheney: multiwatcher refactor lgtm |
|
[04:12] <davecheney> wallyworld: ta |
|
[04:12] <davecheney> just waiting for the other branch to land |
|
[04:13] <wallyworld> refactoring is good :-) |
|
[04:13] <wallyworld> fixing dependencies is good :-) |
|
[04:13] <davecheney> wallyworld: it's made thigns a lot cleaner |
|
[04:13] <jw4> I'm unclear on api breaking changes with regards to Actions since they're not in use anywhere yet |
|
[04:13] <davecheney> api/ no longer depends on state |
|
[04:13] <wallyworld> \o/ |
|
[04:13] <wallyworld> and not should it |
|
[04:13] <wallyworld> nor |
|
[04:14] <davecheney> indeed |
|
[04:14] <wallyworld> jw4: my view is go ahead with your changes, so long as they are truly not used anywhere |
|
[04:14] <jw4> wallyworld: yep not yet, but that window closure is rapidly approaching |
|
[04:15] <wallyworld> time to get it right then |
|
[04:15] <wallyworld> before you ship a working solution |
|
[04:15] <jw4> yeah, and this PR is groundwork for some realy good improvements :) |
|
[04:16] <wallyworld> \o/ |
|
[04:22] <davecheney> jw4: names review done |
|
[04:22] <jw4> tx davecheney |
|
[04:34] <davecheney> wallyworld: axw https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/1137 |
|
[04:34] <davecheney> good to review now |
|
[04:34] <wallyworld> looking |
|
[04:34] <davecheney> just merged the prereq |
|
[04:35] <wallyworld> davecheney: i just review that one did't i? |
|
[04:35] <davecheney> yeah |
|
[04:35] <davecheney> lgtm still stands ? |
|
[04:43] <jw4> updated https://github.com/juju/names/pull/31 (davecheney ?) |
|
[04:44] * davecheney looks |
|
[04:45] <davecheney> jw4: what about the panic in Join... ? |
|
[04:45] <jw4> davecheney: what should it do? |
|
[04:46] <jw4> davecheney: if someone calls it with invalid input? |
|
[04:46] <davecheney> i think we have to apply the same logic as we do with tags |
|
[04:46] <davecheney> NewXXTag will panic |
|
[04:46] <davecheney> so you're not uspposed to call it outisde of a test without validating the input first |
|
[04:46] <davecheney> ie, validating that it wont panic |
|
[04:47] <jw4> davecheney: I see, so assume good input? |
|
[04:48] <davecheney> not sure what you mean ? |
|
[04:48] <jw4> well... since this is a public "constructor" it can be called with invalid input |
|
[04:48] <jw4> not sure what to do in that case |
|
[04:49] <davecheney> the rule of thumb is |
|
[04:49] <davecheney> don't panic in non test code |
|
[04:49] <davecheney> that goes double when dealing with user input |
|
[04:52] <jw4> davecheney: so should JoinActionTag have an error return type? If I understood you correctly you're saying that non test code should never call the other NewXXTag variants that also panic and don't return error. |
|
[04:53] <jw4> davecheney: I might have misunderstood you before too - maybe the only use of this Join.. method is in Test code... |
|
[04:53] <davecheney> if the method is only used in tests, then there is nothing to do |
|
[04:53] <davecheney> sorry, i think i asked that |
|
[04:53] <davecheney> but i wasn't clear enough |
|
[04:54] <davecheney> panicing in tests is fine |
|
[04:54] <jw4> davecheney: no you were clear, I just wasn't thinking right |
|
[04:54] <davecheney> ericsnow: you're good to go on that PR |
|
[04:54] <ericsnow> davecheney: thanks |
|
[04:55] <ericsnow> davecheney: I'm hoping to land http://reviews.vapour.ws/r/402/ (the one where I get rid of the sub-packages) before any of my other patches |
|
[04:55] <jw4> davecheney: so JoinActionTag is used entirely in test code except for closely coupled calls that I will fix in state |
|
[04:56] <davecheney> i'll have a look |
|
[04:56] <davecheney> jw4: ok |
|
[04:56] <davecheney> ericsnow: oh, that was that two page review |
|
[04:56] <davecheney> i'll have a look now |
|
[04:56] <ericsnow> davecheney: k |
|
=== kadams54 is now known as kadams54-away |
|
[05:43] <ericsnow> davecheney: thanks for the followup review |
|
[05:43] <ericsnow> davecheney: I'll look closely tomorrow |
|
[05:50] <davecheney> np |
|
[05:54] <jw4> Smallish initial refactor of Actions to use UUID instead of Sequence for suffix of _id : http://reviews.vapour.ws/r/441/ |
|
[05:55] <jw4> preparation for consolidating Actions and ActionResults into one entity, and improving of the watcher and notification design of actions |
|
[06:02] <davecheney> jw4: reviewed |
|
[06:02] <jw4> speedy gonzalez! |
|
[06:02] <jw4> :) |
|
[06:07] <jw4> davecheney: couple questions... |
|
[06:07] <davecheney> shoot |
|
[06:08] <jw4> 1) names.ActionTag is in an intermediate stage right now, where it has prefix and suffix, but the suffix is just a string, not guaranteed to be an UUID |
|
[06:08] <jw4> after step two or three I hope to rid actions of the prefix/suffix id altogether |
|
[06:08] <davecheney> jw4: ok, add a TODO |
|
[06:08] <jw4> and the ActionTag will just be kind-UUID |
|
[06:08] <jw4> kk |
|
[06:08] <davecheney> and don't use dud data in tests |
|
[06:09] <jw4> :-S |
|
[06:09] <jw4> wait... what's the emoticon for embarrassed? |
|
[06:09] <davecheney> i'm only know the ones for smashing things |
|
[06:10] <jw4> 2) the Action.ActionTag() method returns an ActionTag but I don't know how to guarantee that the internal state will be correct |
|
[06:11] <jw4> notwithstanding our earlier discussion, is it appropriate to panic in the case where an Action entity has invalid _id that will cause an invalid ActionTag? |
|
[06:11] <davecheney> yes, but you should also provide a validation function |
|
[06:12] <davecheney> so callers can know that they call that method, they'll get valid data |
|
[06:12] <davecheney> or return an error |
|
[06:12] <jw4> Ah! |
|
[06:12] <jw4> derp ... so Action.ActionTag() should return names.Tag, bool |
|
[06:12] <davecheney> yup |
|
[06:12] <jw4> kk |
|
[06:12] <davecheney> the key is we never create an invalid tag |
|
[06:12] <davecheney> if we do that at the points where thigns are converted to tags |
|
[06:13] <davecheney> then we have less error checking |
|
[06:13] <jw4> makes sense |
|
[06:13] <davecheney> and we _know_ that when someone talks about a tag, it is valid data |
|
[06:13] <davecheney> that is the difference between a tag and string |
|
[06:14] <jw4> pedantically speaking; since the return is names.ActionTag, bool not *names.ActionTag, bool then we will be returning an invalid tag when the bool is false |
|
[06:14] <jw4> (parenthesis would have helped that sentence) |
|
[06:14] <davecheney> yes, that is why names.NewXXXTag returns a tag or panics |
|
[06:14] <davecheney> so there is no chance, even if you ignore the error, that you can use bad data |
|
[06:15] <davecheney> so my preference is for somehing like |
|
[06:15] <davecheney> action.ValidateTag() bool |
|
[06:15] <davecheney> which does the check |
|
[06:15] <davecheney> and action.Tag() whcih returns a tag or panics |
|
[06:15] <davecheney> then, you can ditch validateTag once it is not needed |
|
[06:15] <jw4> hmm; interesting. I see. I'll go that route in this case |
|
[06:16] <davecheney> its pretty gross |
|
[06:16] <davecheney> but that is why tags are so strict |
|
[06:16] <davecheney> once you have a tag |
|
[06:16] <davecheney> you know whereever you use that data it is valid |
|
[06:16] <davecheney> pretty gross, having to add that validate method |
|
[06:17] <jw4> hmm; methinks I should keep that in mind for the next refactor of the names package too |
|
[06:17] <davecheney> basically the rule is |
|
[06:17] <davecheney> if you have a tag value, you _KNOW_ it is valid |
|
[06:18] <davecheney> so any method you call on that will also return valid dta |
|
[06:18] <davecheney> the cost of this is we need to be pedantic when parsing data to return a tag |
|
[06:18] <davecheney> so, one option could be to relax the checks that action.ActionTag does |
|
[06:18] <davecheney> thereby making more things valid action tags |
|
[06:19] <jw4> not a terrible choice, especially in transition |
|
[06:21] <davecheney> a valid tag is pretty much defined by it's consumers |
|
[06:21] <davecheney> as long as there is nothing like |
|
[06:21] <davecheney> if tag.String() == "" { return error } |
|
[06:21] <davecheney> then it's fine |
|
[06:22] <jw4> kk |
|
[06:33] <jw4> updated http://reviews.vapour.ws/r/441/ |
|
[06:41] <jw4> thanks davecheney ; I'll need to update the names package again to make sure invalid UUID's cause the JoinActionTag to panic |
|
[06:41] <jw4> also, interestingly utils.NewUUID() failed and returned an error in my tests a few minutes ago... |
|
[06:42] <jw4> I'm going to head to bed, but I'll pick it up again in the morning. |
|
[08:22] <rogpeppe> davecheney: ping |
|
[08:22] <davecheney> rogpeppe: ack |
|
[08:23] <rogpeppe> davecheney: can you see what i'm doing wrong here? http://paste.ubuntu.com/9001604/ |
|
[08:23] <rogpeppe> davecheney: in relation to this issue: https://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9098 |
|
[08:23] <rogpeppe> davecheney: i *think* i'm guaranteed to be running from go tip there, no? |
|
[08:23] * davecheney looks |
|
[08:24] <davecheney> rogpeppe: yes, thats go tip |
|
[08:24] <davecheney> is the polyNNNN repo updated ? |
|
[08:24] <davecheney> that repo has some asm which probalby needs to be updated |
|
[08:24] <rogpeppe> davecheney: just making sure |
|
[08:25] <mattyw> morning everyone |
|
[08:25] <mattyw> rogpeppe, davecheney morning |
|
[08:26] <rogpeppe> davecheney: ah, i guess that was the problem! |
|
[08:26] <rogpeppe> davecheney: i'm sure i go get -u'd it but evidently not |
|
[08:28] <davecheney> rogpeppe: i think the bug is in the poly repo |
|
[08:28] <davecheney> or in a duff working copy |
|
[08:28] <rogpeppe> davecheney: yeah |
|
[09:08] <voidspace> morning all |
|
=== Spads_ is now known as Spads |
|
[10:03] <voidspace> dimitern: morning |
|
[10:03] <dimitern> voidspace, morning |
|
[10:08] <voidspace> dimitern: http://reviews.vapour.ws/r/432/ |
|
[10:24] <wallyworld> axw: re: the test |
|
[10:25] <wallyworld> it won't work on windows will it? |
|
[10:25] <axw> wallyworld: ah, crap. |
|
[10:25] <axw> nope |
|
[10:25] <wallyworld> i'd prefer not to rely on the pysical machine |
|
[10:25] <wallyworld> mock out the func |
|
[10:25] <wallyworld> sorry, i hould have been more insistent |
|
[10:25] <axw> wallyworld: the best we could do then is to check that the worker is started |
|
[10:26] <wallyworld> started and calls some func |
|
[10:26] <wallyworld> i'll kill the landing job |
|
[10:26] <axw> thanks |
|
[10:26] <axw> wallyworld: "and calls some func" ? |
|
[10:27] <wallyworld> mock out the func that the worker calls to check for block devices, can't remember the details off hand |
|
[10:27] <axw> wallyworld: I'd prefer doing that inside the worker tests |
|
[10:27] <wallyworld> return a made up set of block devices |
|
[10:27] <wallyworld> ok |
|
[10:27] <wallyworld> maybe checking the worker had started is enough |
|
[10:27] <axw> I'll move the current test inside worker/diskmanager as a linux-only test |
|
[10:28] <wallyworld> but checking the worker has started doesn't check that it's wired up right |
|
[10:28] <axw> faking bits out doesn't really either |
|
[10:29] <axw> e.g. pretending that it'd work on Windows, when in reality it won't |
|
[10:30] <axw> wallyworld: alternatively, we could just skip the test on non-Linux...? |
|
[10:30] <axw> eventually it should work on Windows too |
|
[10:30] <wallyworld> sure, but if we mock out listBlockDevices(), we can check that the worker calls that func |
|
[10:31] <wallyworld> i guess yeah skip that test on windows |
|
[10:31] <wallyworld> but we should have a test for the no op worker on windows? |
|
[10:32] <wallyworld> ie test that the right worker is started on the given platform |
|
[10:32] <axw> ok |
|
[10:38] <perrito666> morning |
|
[11:32] <axw> wallyworld: I've pushed again, with more tests and refactored to work better on Windows |
|
[11:33] <wallyworld> ta, looking |
|
[11:40] * fwereade extended lunch to do parent teacher thing at school |
|
[11:46] <wallyworld> axw: one comment - still about that machine agent test that relies on actually querying the machine hardware |
|
[11:52] <voidspace> dimitern: I take it we *don't* have to account for the fact that a machine (maas node) may have multiple network interfaces with overlapping CIDRs (on different networks) |
|
[11:53] <voidspace> dimitern: but we can assume that if a required address falls within a CIDR for a network then we should request the address allocation for that interface |
|
[11:53] <dimitern> voidspace, hold on, how can the CIDRs be overlapping? |
|
[11:53] <voidspace> dimitern: i.e. the algorithm is "list networks for instance", "find the first one where the requested IP falls within the CIDR" |
|
[11:54] <voidspace> dimitern: you can have the same IP address on different networks, right? |
|
[11:54] <dimitern> voidspace, nope, I'd be surprised if you could |
|
[11:54] <voidspace> dimitern: hmmm... ok, fair enough |
|
[11:54] <voidspace> dimitern: I won't worry about it |
|
[11:54] <dimitern> voidspace, how will the routing work otherwise? |
|
[11:55] <voidspace> dimitern: so you can have two different networks both using the same address space - but not routable between each other |
|
[11:55] <dimitern> voidspace, that's not possible in maas |
|
[11:55] <voidspace> dimitern: cool |
|
[11:56] <dimitern> voidspace, and in ec2 it's not an issue, as everything falls inside the vpc super-range |
|
[11:56] <voidspace> dimitern: yep, great |
|
[11:56] <voidspace> but for manual provider :-p |
|
[11:56] <voidspace> which we're not worrying about now |
|
[11:58] <dimitern> voidspace, for the manual provider and others we'll have to think, but not now, yeah :) |
|
[12:04] <axw> wallyworld: the whole thing is not a unit test, it's a functional test. but yes, I can mock lsblk. |
|
[12:04] <axw> will come back to it on monday |
|
[12:04] <axw> thanks for the review |
|
[12:05] <wallyworld> yeah, those jujud tests suck |
|
[12:05] <wallyworld> nice not to propogate the badness just a little |
|
=== kadams54 is now known as kadams54-away |
|
=== kadams54-away is now known as kadams54 |
|
=== kadams54 is now known as kadams54-away |
|
=== kadams54-away is now known as kadams54 |
|
[14:22] <voidspace> dimitern: if you're happy with http://reviews.vapour.ws/r/432/ could you add a shipit? |
|
[14:25] <voidspace> dimitern: oh |
|
[14:25] <voidspace> dimitern: you did :-) |
|
[14:25] <voidspace> dimitern: thanks |
|
[14:25] <voidspace> hadn't refreshed page |
|
[14:37] <perrito666> natefinch: ? |
|
[14:48] <dimitern> voidspace, :) |
|
[14:52] <fwereade> perrito666, ping |
|
[14:53] <fwereade> perrito666, actually just when you're around: http://reviews.vapour.ws/r/298/ is in the queue, but I think I'll need a guiding hand to be useful with it: do you need another reviewer, or can I leave it to people who alreayd have relevant state in mind? |
|
[14:55] <perrito666> hey hey |
|
[14:56] <perrito666> fwereade: the people involved already have a state of mind and have been involved somehow in the changes made since initial proposal I think we can manage for now :) |
|
[14:58] <fwereade> perrito666, thanks |
|
[14:59] <fwereade> ericsnow, similar questions re http://reviews.vapour.ws/r/346/ -- ISTM that dave/tim/jesse have already been looking into it in some detail, do you want my 2c as well or shall I leave it in their hands? |
|
[15:04] <ericsnow> fwereade: I think we're good, but thanks (feel free to look things over though) |
|
[15:04] <fwereade> ericsnow, it all looks fine as code, but the trouble is I'm a bit behind on necessary context for sane judgment |
|
[15:05] <ericsnow> fwereade: no worries |
|
[15:22] <perrito666> sinzui: I have to admit that my jaw dropped when I saw your mail not have an issue about restore :p |
|
[15:23] <sinzui> perrito666, I hope you didn't jinx the tests |
|
[15:23] * sinzui looks |
|
[15:31] <jw4> fwereade: thanks for the review - I think you're right about slashes versus hyphens... I know there was a reason, but I don't think it was insurmountable |
|
[15:32] <jw4> fwereade: I don't think you've lost much context except maybe that switching from Sequence ID to UUID is a good initial step to consolidating Actions and ActionResults |
|
[15:32] <jw4> fwereade: in fact I think both slashes and hyphens are supported |
|
[15:33] <fwereade> jw4, so, the thing about uuids is that they're meant to be uu -- and so the leading service/unit bit would now seem to be redundant? |
|
=== tvansteenburgh1 is now known as tvansteenburgh |
|
[15:33] <jw4> fwereade: exactly |
|
[15:34] <fwereade> jw4, hmm, I would be happier if we didn't have alternative spellings of the "same" tag |
|
[15:34] <jw4> fwereade: I was telling davecheney last night that this is an intermediate step |
|
[15:34] <jw4> fwereade: +1 |
|
[15:34] <jw4> fwereade: I'll fix that too |
|
[15:34] <fwereade> jw4, well, if it's intermediate towards "action-<uuid>" then the alternate spelling quibble is redundant too :) |
|
[15:34] <jw4> fwereade: within a couple hops the ActionTags should be as clean as some of the other tags without the Prefix/Suffix mumbo jumbo |
|
[15:35] <fwereade> jw4, <3 |
|
[15:35] <jw4> fwereade: yep end-state action-<uuid> |
|
[15:35] <fwereade> jw4, fwiw, I think that NotNil in the review is redundant |
|
[15:36] <fwereade> jw4, a nil error will fail the subsequent ErrorMatches |
|
[15:36] <jw4> fwereade: derp |
|
[15:36] <jw4> fwereade: *thats* why my test was failing, and why davecheney told me to drop it |
|
[15:36] <jw4> :) |
|
[15:36] <fwereade> jw4, and btw I'm not quite following the NewUUID thing? |
|
[15:36] <jw4> fwereade: confused rambling |
|
[15:36] <fwereade> jw4, if it's broken we should fix it |
|
[15:37] <jw4> fwereade: it all hinges on the fact that my assert should have been gc.Nil |
|
[15:37] <jw4> i.e. I was *trying* to assert no error |
|
[15:37] <jw4> not that there *was* an error |
|
[15:37] <jw4> :) |
|
[15:38] <jw4> fwereade: in short there is no problem with NewUUID except in my formerly confused mind |
|
[15:40] <fwereade> jw4, ok, I think that's an LGTM with trivials then |
|
[15:40] <jw4> kk |
|
[16:04] <wwitzel3> ericsnow, natefinch, perrito666 |
|
[16:05] <perrito666> mm, I seem to have some connection prob, be right there |
|
[16:37] <rogpeppe> the proposal for the hook that runs if no other hook does is "default-hook", right? |
|
[16:37] <rogpeppe> fwereade: ^ |
|
[16:38] <rogpeppe> dimitern: ^ |
|
[16:39] <dimitern> rogpeppe, I don't really know, sorry |
|
[16:39] <rogpeppe> dimitern: ok, thanks |
|
[16:40] <rogpeppe> dimitern: i'll go with default-hook for the time being... |
|
[16:40] <dimitern> rogpeppe, +1 |
|
[17:49] <sinzui> natefinch, mgz do you have a minute to review https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/1145 |
|
[17:51] <mgz> sinzui: lgtm |
|
[17:52] <wwitzel3> is there a way to set the debug level before you bootstrap? |
|
[18:29] <wwitzel3> natefinch: found the issue with bug #1392390 |
|
[18:29] <mup> Bug #1392390: maas zone selected for deployment that is occupied <cloud-installer> <landscape> <maas-provider> <placement> <regression> <juju-core:Triaged by wwitzel3> <juju-core 1.21:Triaged by wwitzel3> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1392390> |
|
[18:30] <wwitzel3> natefinch: there are zero tests for that code is part of the problem, the for loop that looks at zones, if there was no error for a zone, it would keep process until the last zone instead of breaking out of the loop. |
|
[18:31] <wwitzel3> natefinch: resulting in the twilight zone (which is full) being the last attempt, and hence returning the error. |
|
[18:31] <voidspace> g'night folks |
|
[18:31] <wwitzel3> nn voidspace have a good weekend |
|
[18:31] <voidspace> wwitzel3: you too, thanks |
|
[18:32] <natefinch> wwitzel3: interesting |
|
[18:32] <wwitzel3> natefinch: I added a break after the err check, and it works just fine now. |
|
[18:33] <natefinch> .....and a test? :) |
|
[18:33] <wwitzel3> natefinch: I am probably going to break out the zone selection logic in to its own method, so it can actually be tested. |
|
[18:33] <natefinch> huzzah! |
|
[18:33] <wwitzel3> natefinch: because right now, testing it would be a nightmare (probably why it doesn't have them) |
|
[18:34] <natefinch> My thumbs aren't big enough for the thumbs up I want to give that :) |
|
[18:34] <perrito666> natefinch: get one of those gloves you guys use for sport games |
|
[18:34] <natefinch> lol |
|
[18:35] <wwitzel3> haha |
|
[18:35] <wwitzel3> sinzui: bug #1392390 needs fixing in master as well, so once it is fixed there, what is the process of getting it in to 1.21 branch? |
|
[18:35] <mup> Bug #1392390: maas zone selected for deployment that is occupied <cloud-installer> <landscape> <maas-provider> <placement> <regression> <juju-core:Triaged by wwitzel3> <juju-core 1.21:Triaged by wwitzel3> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1392390> |
|
[18:37] <sinzui> wwitzel3, branch 1.21, use git patch to apply changes from you master addition. request a pull...edit the destination from master to 1.21 |
|
[18:38] <wwitzel3> sinzui: got it, thanks |
|
=== kadams54 is now known as kadams54-away |
|
[19:09] <natefinch> ericsnow: did you need me to look at something? |
|
[19:09] <ericsnow> natefinch: in a few minutes |
|
[19:09] <natefinch> ericsnow: kk |
|
=== kadams54-away is now known as kadams54 |
|
[19:18] <ericsnow> natefinch: feel free to look over all the reviews or the whole patch, but I'd especially appreciate some feedback on the remaining (4) open issues on http://reviews.vapour.ws/r/402/. |
|
[19:22] <ericsnow> natefinch: same with http://reviews.vapour.ws/r/346/ (which has no open issues) |
|
[19:26] <natefinch> ericsnow: looking |
|
[19:26] <ericsnow> natefinch: ta |
|
[19:27] <perrito666> rick_h_: I think I found the solution to my problem with having inexpensive cards with ipmi http://blog.michaelboman.org/2013/01/poor-mans-ipmi.html |
|
[19:49] <wwitzel3> ericsnow: is RB not auto pulling in PRs anymore? |
|
[19:50] <ericsnow> wwitzel3: should be |
|
[19:50] <ericsnow> wwitzel3: but now that you mention it |
|
[19:50] <ericsnow> wwitzel3: github's API throttles your requests if you aren't properly authenticated |
|
[19:50] <ericsnow> wwitzel3: I'm guessing that's the issue |
|
[19:51] <ericsnow> wwitzel3: yep ("API rate limit exceeded"); I'm planning on fixing this today |
|
[19:52] <ericsnow> wwitzel3: in the meantime you can still use rbt post |
|
[19:55] <wwitzel3> ericsnow: I haven't reinstalled it since my laptop reinstall, guess I should do that |
|
[19:55] <ericsnow> wwitzel3: no worries |
|
[19:55] <ericsnow> wwitzel3: you can still get a review on github if need be |
|
[19:57] <wwitzel3> ericsnow: https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/1146 fixes bug #1392390 |
|
[19:57] <mup> Bug #1392390: maas zone selected for deployment that is occupied <cloud-installer> <landscape> <maas-provider> <placement> <regression> <juju-core:Triaged by wwitzel3> <juju-core 1.21:Triaged by wwitzel3> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1392390> |
|
[20:01] <natefinch> ericsnow: sorry, kids woke up early from their naps and wife just got home from midwife and has been instructed to take it easy for a few days, so I gotta run.... also means I didn't get to that review |
|
[20:01] <ericsnow> natefinch: no worries |
|
[20:01] <perrito666> natefinch: tri a shot of scotch to each |
|
[20:02] <natefinch> lol |
|
[20:02] * perrito666 would be a terrible parent |
|
[20:23] <perrito666> ericsnow: did anything change on the way the mongo backup is done? |
|
[20:23] <ericsnow> perrito666: a little |
|
[20:24] <perrito666> ok, what exactly? |
|
[20:24] <ericsnow> perrito666: restore will be responsible for deleting the "ignored" databases after mongorestore runs |
|
[20:24] <ericsnow> perrito666: should be trivial |
|
[20:24] <perrito666> ok, but what I am asking is, should I change the parameters I use for mongo when restoring? |
|
[20:25] <perrito666> besides that? |
|
[20:25] <perrito666> like, did you change the way you do the dump? |
|
[20:25] <ericsnow> perrito666: nope |
|
[20:25] <perrito666> cool |
|
[20:25] <ericsnow> perrito666: :) |
|
[21:42] <fwereade> rogpeppe, yes, that is default-hook. but fwiw I think that something-changed is a better general approach, so we don't end up running the same code 500 times for no benefit |
|
[22:03] <rick_h_> perrito666: hah, that's one way to go |
|
|