| [04:03] <mup_> Issue operator#293 opened: passing k8s_resources to pod.set_spec does not work <Created by jetpackdanger> <https://github.com/canonical/operator/issues/293> | |
| [08:41] <Chipaca> good morning peeps! | |
| [09:53] * Chipaca takes a break | |
| === mup__ is now known as mup_ | |
| [11:10] <facubatista> Muy buenos días a todos! | |
| [11:18] <Chipaca> facubatista: 👋! | |
| [11:19] <facubatista> hola Chipaca :) | |
| [12:18] <MarkMaglana> question: is it possible to emit an interface event that comes with a data structure which the charm then fills in with data? i tried it but it looks like the data that the charm set doesn't make its way back to the interface. i suppose it's cloned before being passed to the charm? | |
| [12:27] <Chipaca> MarkMaglana: you'd need to implement custom serialisers and de-serialisers | |
| [12:27] <Chipaca> MarkMaglana: other than that i'd expect it to work | |
| [12:28] <MarkMaglana> Chipaca: got an example? That's not the `snapshot` and `restore` methods is it? | |
| [12:29] <Chipaca> MarkMaglana: i don't have an example, no -- and yes, snapshot and restore | |
| [12:30] <Chipaca> MarkMaglana: 'The current storage state is committed before and after each observer is notified.' (what it doesn't say is that _emit is just _reemit with more steps) | |
| [12:30] <Chipaca> ie the event gets written out, and then read back in | |
| [12:37] <MarkMaglana> OK thanks! Let me try that out then. | |
| [12:38] * Chipaca goes back to having lunch | |
| [12:40] <Chipaca> facubatista: https://www.pythonpodcast.com/pip-resolver-dependency-management-episode-264/ fwiw | |
| [12:40] <facubatista> Chipaca, will read, after I finish the review of your branch | |
| [12:40] <Chipaca> facubatista: I approve of this ordering | |
| [13:01] <MarkMaglana> Chipaca: I may be doing something wrong. The data that the charm set doesn't make its way back to the interface. | |
| [13:01] <MarkMaglana> Here's the data structure with custom snapshot and restore: https://github.com/relaxdiego/charm-k8s-alertmanager/blob/7704df683400057208a3f18d79eaf326ce64e22c/src/interface_prometheus.py#L14-L39 | |
| [13:02] <MarkMaglana> Here's the interace's handler/emmitter: https://github.com/relaxdiego/charm-k8s-alertmanager/blob/7704df683400057208a3f18d79eaf326ce64e22c/src/interface_prometheus.py#L85-L95 | |
| [13:03] <MarkMaglana> ...and here's the charm code that tries to modify the data structure: https://github.com/relaxdiego/charm-k8s-alertmanager/blob/7704df683400057208a3f18d79eaf326ce64e22c/src/charm.py#L73-L80 | |
| [13:18] <Chipaca> MarkMaglana: and what do you see in the logs? | |
| [13:22] <MarkMaglana> Chipaca: https://gist.github.com/relaxdiego/dc3af6827f150cd1b698e2da9106b603 | |
| [13:23] <Chipaca> MarkMaglana: but that shows you getting the data | |
| [13:23] <Chipaca> MarkMaglana: what are you seeing as broken? | |
| [13:23] <MarkMaglana> from the interface to the charm, yes. i was hoping that the additional 'test': 'test1' that I set from inside the charm would make its way back to the interface. | |
| [13:24] <MarkMaglana> see line 14 of that gist | |
| [13:26] <Chipaca> ohhhh | |
| [13:27] <Chipaca> MarkMaglana: sorry, I had misunderstood | |
| [13:28] <Chipaca> MarkMaglana: I don't think that's going to work | |
| [13:28] <MarkMaglana> did i misunderstand the concept of interfaces? i thought it was meant to be a dumb pipe that both ends of the interface can send and receive messages through. | |
| [13:41] <Chipaca> facubatista: you froze | |
| [13:41] <MarkMaglana> Chipaca: oh. I should call `framework.relation_data_set()` inside the charm, huh? | |
| [13:43] <MarkMaglana> ok i need to revisit this. | |
| [13:43] <MarkMaglana> time to call it a day for now | |
| [13:48] <Chipaca> MarkMaglana: i don't see a relation_data_set, but let's talk more tomorrow | |
| [13:49] <Chipaca> also ja_m comes on early tomorrow so maybe that's more timely for you (he's off today) | |
| [13:49] * Chipaca feels like half his brain is off today too | |
| [15:42] <Chipaca> facubatista: addressed all your concerns with ops.lib except the have-a-dict-per-api one | |
| [15:42] <Chipaca> still thinking about that one | |
| [15:43] <facubatista> Chipaca, ack, thanks! | |
| [15:44] <Chipaca> facubatista: it can't be exactly as you show because then we'd risk overwriting an newer patch-level with an older one for the same api | |
| [15:44] <Chipaca> but it's an easy tweak | |
| [15:44] <facubatista> yes, (api, patch) | |
| [15:44] <Chipaca> but, but, not sure it's simpler. OT1H it's got a better behaviour in a pathologic case | |
| [15:45] <Chipaca> facubatista: nah, you don't want the patch in that dict, just the api | |
| [15:45] <facubatista> Chipaca, in any case, even if we keep the current structure, let's think about "repeated" stuff there | |
| [15:45] <Chipaca> and if d[api] < the_one_i_just_found, then replace it | |
| [15:45] <Chipaca> facubatista: ok let's do that | |
| [15:45] <facubatista> mmm... you still need to put 5.4 in that structure, even if you have 5.5, because the user may specify 5.4 | |
| [15:46] <Chipaca> facubatista: no they mayn't | |
| [15:46] <Chipaca> facubatista: the user may only specify api, not patch | |
| [15:46] <facubatista> ah, right | |
| [15:46] <Chipaca> so we only need to keep one | |
| [15:50] <Chipaca> facubatista: that's we the list is kept sorted | |
| [15:50] <Chipaca> facubatista: but | |
| [15:50] <Chipaca> facubatista: the common case is going to be to have just one of these things | |
| [15:50] <Chipaca> two is already stretching it | |
| [15:50] <Chipaca> so the current approach seems fine | |
| [15:50] <facubatista> Chipaca, ok | |
| [15:51] <Chipaca> if it turns out we're wrong about this and need to change to a dict because, it's a private, invisible change | |
| [15:51] <Chipaca> so i'm happy as is | |
| [15:54] <facubatista> Chipaca, +1 with a comment | |
| [15:54] <facubatista> OTOH, I'm concerned about the quantity of exit points in None, after not finding exactly what we want, without any logging or anything. | |
| [15:54] <facubatista> this would make debugging that part of the lib really hard | |
| [15:55] <Chipaca> facubatista: yes. I'm thinking about that a bit. | |
| [15:55] <facubatista> Chipaca, I propose to be silent only when checking all the sys.path and searching for "opslib" dir... but after that, if we do find a "opslib", we should log in debug why we're skipping what we found | |
| [15:55] <Chipaca> facubatista: OTOH², I was thinking of writing a second ops.lib.use | |
| [15:55] <Chipaca> ]:-) | |
| [15:56] <facubatista> a second one? | |
| [15:56] <Chipaca> facubatista: one that you run at build time | |
| [15:56] <Chipaca> facubatista: or at debug time | |
| [15:56] <Chipaca> and it tells you what it would find, what you're missing, that sort of thing? | |
| [15:57] <facubatista> ops.lib.search | |
| [15:57] <facubatista> super verbose | |
| [15:57] <Chipaca> "you have ops.lib.use('foo') but no foo anywhere", or "you have ops.lib.use('foo') but your requirements do not include those from the foo opslib" | |
| [15:57] <Chipaca> dunno, spitballing here | |
| [15:57] <facubatista> ops.lib.use('foo', debug=True) | |
| [15:58] * Chipaca wonders why it's called 'spitballing', that's disgusting | |
| [15:58] <facubatista> verbose=True | |
| [15:58] <facubatista> explain=True | |
| [15:58] <Chipaca> facubatista: i was thinking more "charmcraft build runs the charm with DEBUG_OPS_LIB=1" | |
| [15:58] <facubatista> "foo opslib found, discarding it because LIBPATCH constant is not an int" | |
| [15:59] <Chipaca> in any case, these are incremental improvements we can … improve | |
| [15:59] <Chipaca> or we can increment them :-p | |
| [16:00] <facubatista> Chipaca, checking this "at lib building" (through charmcraft, for example) would bring issues when all these checkings evolve ("it's clean when I build it but in production is not getting found", then to realize the user has OF 0.7 in dev and 0.6 in prod) | |
| [16:01] <Chipaca> facubatista: so we should be logger.debug(...) stuff in any case | |
| [16:01] <Chipaca> or logger.info() even | |
| [16:01] <facubatista> Chipaca, logging in debug why the opslib that we find is not really considered, at .use() time, would be a nice thing | |
| [16:01] <Chipaca> right | |
| [16:02] <facubatista> in any case, after we find the "opslib" dir, none of those loggings should be seen, unless the lib itself is malformed | |
| [16:02] <facubatista> "misformed"? "misshaped"? | |
| [16:03] <Chipaca> "an mp3 file of a scream"? | |
| [16:17] <Chipaca> d'oh, forgot to drop the XXX | |
| [16:18] <facubatista> Chipaca, this is a good source about the "solver": https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/988 | |
| [16:18] <Chipaca> facubatista: ack | |
| [16:19] <facubatista> it starts ~7 years ago :) | |
| [16:19] <Chipaca> facubatista: it's almost as if this stuff were hard | |
| [16:19] <facubatista> jajaja | |
| [16:19] <facubatista> go figure | |
| [16:43] * facubatista -> bank errands, bb~1h | |
| [17:56] * facubatista is back | |
| [18:48] <mup_> PR operator#294 opened: Log when a served breakpoint is not really activated because of name mismatch <Created by facundobatista> <https://github.com/canonical/operator/pull/294> | |
| [20:39] * facubatista eods | |