| === slank is now known as slank_away | ||
| jtv | I'm trying to figure out how to unit-test a non-exported function... Is that possible? Is there a knack to it? | 07:41 |
|---|---|---|
| rogpeppe | jtv: there are two techniques for that | 07:49 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: you can write a test file that's in the package itself (package foo, not package foo_test) | 07:50 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: or you can export the function for the tests only | 07:50 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: i'm assuming you're talking about Go here | 07:51 |
| jtv | rogpeppe: yes, Go, thanks. | 07:53 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: there's a convention for applying the latter technique | 07:53 |
| jtv | The test and the module are both in the same package. Maybe the problem is that we have multiple source files and test files in the same package? | 07:53 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: they're in the same directory, yes, but what does the "package" declaration at the top of the test file read? | 07:54 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: there's no problem with having multiple source files and test files in the same directory | 07:54 |
| jtv | They're in the same package (as well as the same directory) | 07:56 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: then there should be no problem using unexported functions | 07:56 |
| jtv | Hmmm | 07:56 |
| jtv | Maybe the problem is getting the branch into my Go environment. | 07:56 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: what error message are you getting? | 07:57 |
| jtv | Just having it in $GOPATH/src/launchpad.net/ doesn't seem to do the trick. | 07:57 |
| * jtv compiles... | 07:57 | |
| jtv | undefined: <my lower-case function name> | 07:57 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: if you push the branch, i could take a brief look | 07:58 |
| jtv | It's based on lp:~maas-maintainers/maas/gomaasapi (which I think already has the problem) | 08:00 |
| jtv | Meanwhile, I'll commit & push. | 08:00 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: i just ran go test in gomaasapi and it worked ok | 08:01 |
| jtv | By the way, how do you get a branch with a URL like that into your Go environment? | 08:01 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: it lives inside $GOPATH/src/$packagepath | 08:02 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: so in this case, you might have it at $GOPATH/src/launchpad.net/maas | 08:03 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: the awkward thing is that you can't have a differently named directory per branch, which doesn't fit well with the usual bzr way of doing things | 08:03 |
| jtv | Yeah | 08:04 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: because package paths are always absolute | 08:04 |
| jtv | Hi there rvba | 08:04 |
| rvba | \o jtv | 08:04 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: i use cobzr | 08:04 |
| jtv | Well current bzr versions supersede that, don't they? | 08:04 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: but i know others have different workarounds | 08:04 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: tell me more :-) | 08:05 |
| jtv | See "Co-located branches with Bazaar" here: https://docs.google.com/a/canonical.com/document/d/1GQ3u7keE3hJH2oaweAm28K78hQZAbqeQqR9xwD9OR4I/edit# | 08:05 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: cool! | 08:06 |
| jtv | Nowhere near as cool as the title. | 08:06 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: nice doc, BTW. i'll have a look through it. | 08:06 |
| jtv | The more the merrier! | 08:07 |
| * rogpeppe should really upgrade to q | 08:07 | |
| rogpeppe | "But if you do want pass-by-reference, it may be best to pass a pointer to the interface value instead." | 08:08 |
| rogpeppe | i think that's spurious | 08:08 |
| jtv | It depends a bit on what the purpose of the interface is, I suspect. | 08:09 |
| jtv | But in light of other gotchas that have come up, it's certainly not one of our big worries. I'll take it out. | 08:10 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: passing a pointer to the interface doesn't help if you want the methods to be operating on the reference | 08:11 |
| jtv | No, of course not. | 08:11 |
| jtv | But they do help if you want to see, for instance, changes that are made by other functions you pass it to. | 08:11 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: yeah. but that's part of the method contract. a pass-by-value implementation of a method can still have side effects that are reflected in later method calls to the same object. | 08:12 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: (for example, it might be operating on a global data structure, or an external file) | 08:13 |
| jtv | Yes, I wasn't thinking so much of pointer receiver types as of general parameter-parameter passing. | 08:14 |
| jtv | (Okay, I'm stating the obvious because an interface can't be a receiver type :) | 08:14 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: yeah | 08:14 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: in the section on non-nil interfaces, you might want to insert this link: http://golang.org/doc/faq#nil_error | 08:15 |
| jtv | Oh yes, thanks | 08:15 |
| jtv | Very nice to have some external feedback. :) | 08:16 |
| jtv | rogpeppe: My "go get launchpad.net/maas/gomaasapi" is taking forever. I'm going to take a break. After that, I'll see if my problems go away with the right branch setup. | 08:18 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: i recommend using play.golang.org links rather than paste.ubuntu.com links. then people can easily try out the examples | 08:18 |
| jtv | Oh, thanks. I'll add a note. | 08:19 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: in the "static polymorphism between structurally identical objects" section, you might want to link to the relevant spec section: http://golang.org/ref/spec#Conversions | 08:21 |
| jtv | Thanks. I'm trying to go off on a break here. :) | 08:21 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: ok, np. enjoy! | 08:22 |
| jtv | :) | 08:23 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: could you give me permission to add comments? | 08:24 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: hiya | 08:35 |
| davecheney | rogpeppe: yo | 08:36 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: i'll do a proper review of worker/stater now we think we know where we're going... | 08:39 |
| davecheney | rogpeppe: cool, i'mma about to step out for the evening | 08:39 |
| davecheney | http://osakamonaurail.com/en/tour.html | 08:39 |
| davecheney | ^ tonight | 08:39 |
| davecheney | live | 08:39 |
| davecheney | for the sydney festival | 08:40 |
| davecheney | i have tix | 08:40 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: enjoy. i'll ping you this evening, 7am your time maybe | 08:40 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: cool. not heard of 'em | 08:40 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: japanese soul, interesting | 08:42 |
| davecheney | they are tighter than tight | 08:42 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: :-) when my gran said "tight" she meant "drunk" | 08:43 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: i looked for launchpad.net/maas/gomaasapi, but it doesn't seem to exist | 08:48 |
| rogpeppe | $ bzr branch lp:maas/gomaasapi | 08:48 |
| rogpeppe | bzr: ERROR: Permission denied: "Cannot create 'gomaasapi'. Only Bazaar branches are allowed." | 08:48 |
| rvba | jtv: not sure why you would want to use launchpad.net/maas/gomaasapi right now… the code is in lp:~maas-maintainers/maas/gomaasapi while we're still getting the project started. http://paste.ubuntu.com/1565492/ | 08:52 |
| jtv | Gah. I was using the wrong invocation of "go test" again. That's all there is to it. | 09:14 |
| rvba | That's what I suspected ;) | 09:15 |
| jtv | Lost a lot of stupid time to that, barking up the wrong trees. | 09:17 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: almost always i just use plain old "go test"... | 10:18 |
| rogpeppe | jtv: an invocation that's hard to get wrong :-) | 10:19 |
| jtv | otp | 10:20 |
| rogpeppe | dimitern: hiya | 10:47 |
| dimitern | rogpeppe: yo! | 10:47 |
| dimitern | mgz, jam: standup? | 11:30 |
| rogpeppe | aram: fancy doing some reviews at some point? | 12:19 |
| niemeyer | Hello all! | 12:41 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: yo! | 12:42 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: are you still on reviews? | 12:43 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: yay! just had first successful live API test. | 12:45 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: well, "success" did take the form of a failure :-) | 12:45 |
| rogpeppe | 3:49.482 c.Assert(apiInstId0, Equals, instId0) | 12:45 |
| rogpeppe | 3:49.482 ... obtained string = "i-963dcbe6" | 12:45 |
| rogpeppe | 3:49.482 ... expected state.InstanceId = "i-963dcbe6" | 12:45 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Woah | 12:50 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: That's cool :-) | 12:50 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: the string there came back from the Request method of the API | 12:50 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: In that specific case, even better than silence, as you know it actually worked :-) | 12:50 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: indeed | 12:50 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: i had a good chat with davecheney last night BTW | 12:51 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: i think we know where we're going with the HA stuff now | 12:51 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Any changes? | 12:54 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: pretty much according to the sketch i showed you | 12:55 |
| rogpeppe | all live tests pass | 13:04 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: How's it different from what is already being pushed by Dave? | 13:04 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: it doesn't involve stater as a jujud subcommand | 13:04 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: worker/stater stays pretty much as he's proposing it though | 13:04 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: although it needs more logic to check if it's already running | 13:05 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Cool, that makes sense | 13:05 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: we run the stater as a job in the machine agent | 13:05 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: +1 | 13:06 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: i'm happy with the direction. i think i can see it all hanging together now. | 13:06 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: if you were up for doing some reviews, i've got a sequence of 4 noisy-but-fairly-insubstantial reviews that take us up to having a working API | 13:07 |
| rogpeppe | https://codereview.appspot.com/7133063/ | 13:08 |
| rogpeppe | https://codereview.appspot.com/7197049/ | 13:08 |
| rogpeppe | https://codereview.appspot.com/7133072/ | 13:08 |
| rogpeppe | https://codereview.appspot.com/7195051/ | 13:08 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: but i totally understand if you don't want to | 13:09 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: I'll surely have a look | 13:12 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: thanks | 13:20 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: how's 17070 for a port number? it's not on either of the two assigned-number lists i've looked at so far. | 13:43 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: and 7070 is kinda mnemonic for juju if you squint right | 13:44 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Hah, looks good :) | 13:45 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: i only use random ports in the tests, so we can run tests concurrently on the same machine without clashing | 13:45 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: The default port for mongo is 27017, btw.. that's where 37017 comes from | 13:46 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: i suspect that we may not need to use a fixed port number in the future, if an agent is actively publishing server addresses. but we may want to anyway. | 13:47 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: You mean an agent with a fixed port just to tell us what the dynamic port is? :-) | 13:48 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: no, i don't think we'd *need* any agent with a fixed port. | 13:49 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: "if an agent is actively publishing server addresses" | 13:49 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: How would one connect to said agent? | 13:49 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: yeah, we need a place to publish, but we already need a place to public (currently it's the private storage; you were suggesting tags, which seems like a good plan too) | 13:49 |
| rogpeppe | s/to public/publish/ | 13:50 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Doesn't sound good | 13:50 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: what i mean is that we've already got a well known place to look, without necessarily needing to have well known ports too | 13:51 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: One thing is what we do.. something else is requiring that everyone talking to an API implement the full logic to figure out where to talk to | 13:51 |
| dimitern | mgz: ping | 13:51 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Our "well known place" is not observable without a good amount of logic | 13:51 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: we already need to find out the IP address. a port isn't much addition to that. | 13:51 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: The only thing we need is to hand out an IP address | 13:51 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: and the TCP port | 13:51 |
| mgz | dimitern: hey | 13:52 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Which is somewhat common for a few decades :) | 13:52 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: indeed. i'm not sure why the port needs to be well known though. we can hand out an IP-address/port pair if we want. | 13:52 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Man.. that's the kind of discussion I'd hope was unnecessary | 13:52 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: and that might have advantages | 13:52 |
| dimitern | mgz: so I found out what I was doing wrong - I assumed in server detail accessIPv4 and accessIPv6 are the addresses to look, but there indeed is addresses with the same structure as server/ips returns | 13:52 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Please use a fixed port number for the service | 13:53 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: for instance, we could potentially run several API servers on the same machine | 13:53 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: i will, and i am | 13:53 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Thakns | 13:53 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: apart from in tests | 13:53 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Sure | 13:53 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: as for authentication, i don't mind it being open for the moment, as the only thing you can do is request an instance id, which doesn't seem too harmful. | 13:54 |
| dimitern | mgz: so instead of landing the CL about /ips, I'll propose a new one, parsing the addresses part of server detail and use that to get the public/private addresses in juju | 13:54 |
| mgz | right, it's the 'addresses' key you care about, which has a list of dicts as content | 13:54 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: authentication is next on the agenda | 13:54 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Sounds good then.. please mention that in the CL | 13:54 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: will do | 13:54 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: There's no "Destroy" or anything, right? | 13:54 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: maybe i'll just slip one in for the hell of it. plus a root shell :) | 13:55 |
| dimitern | mgz: but the thing is - should I parse and make available all addresses reported, from goose into ServerDetail, so juju can pick which ones to use? | 13:56 |
| mgz | dimitern: yes, I'd do that. | 13:56 |
| dimitern | mgz: that's what you suggested - move the logic out of goose and into juju, providing all the necessary details | 13:57 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: thanks v much for the reviews. that's helped immensely. | 13:57 |
| dimitern | mgz: ok then | 13:57 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: My pleasure | 13:58 |
| mgz | dimitern: a list of struct that pretty much just corresponds to the json should be fine for now | 14:00 |
| dimitern | mgz: what I'm not yet sure is how to implement the "wait" part of getting DNSName - just keep calling server/detail until I have addresses? | 14:00 |
| mgz | sounds reasonable for first stab | 14:02 |
| dimitern | mgz: cool, I should have it soon | 14:02 |
| mgz | it's pretty much what the python code does | 14:03 |
| mgz | see the while loop in juju.providers.openstack.launch | 14:03 |
| dimitern | mgz: ok, 10x | 14:03 |
| mgz | (it only does it when configured to provided a public ip, but the principle is the same) | 14:04 |
| * aram doesn't feel very well. | 14:07 | |
| dimitern | aram, get well soon! | 14:08 |
| aram | trying; thanks. | 14:08 |
| mgz | fix internal bugs! or kill them... | 14:09 |
| rogpeppe | API is live in trunk. not that it *does* anything yet :-) | 14:27 |
| rogpeppe | time for lunch and a walk in the snow, i think | 14:27 |
| dimitern | rogpeppe: at least you have snow :) | 14:28 |
| === slank_away is now known as slank | ||
| rogpeppe | dimitern: yeah it's great. still aching from sledging activity at the weekend :-) | 14:28 |
| dimitern | rogpeppe: man, I envy you a bit - my snowboarding skills got all rusty in sunny malta | 14:29 |
| dimitern | but the summer's great :) | 14:29 |
| rogpeppe | dimitern: i haven't been skiing in years | 14:30 |
| rogpeppe | dimitern: i miss it a bit | 14:30 |
| dimitern | rogpeppe: at lest you don't have to catch a plane to go skiing :) | 14:31 |
| rogpeppe | dimitern: i do... the snow only happens here for about a week a year and the hills aren't big enough for skiing unless i go up to scotland where they're still small and the skiing's crap | 14:32 |
| rogpeppe | anyway, lunch! | 14:32 |
| dimitern | yeah, enjoy | 14:32 |
| fss | niemeyer: ping | 16:09 |
| niemeyer | fss: Hey | 16:09 |
| fss | niemeyer: may we get those iam patches merged? :-) | 16:24 |
| niemeyer | fss: Yeah, the end is near | 16:24 |
| fss | niemeyer: thanks | 16:24 |
| niemeyer | fss: I'm planning some time next week to go over goamz-everything | 16:24 |
| fss | niemeyer: nice, we needed some ELB support too, and flaviamissi prepared patches for that too | 16:28 |
| niemeyer | fss: Neat | 16:28 |
| niemeyer | fss: Are they up for review already? | 16:29 |
| fss | niemeyer: not sure, let me ask her | 16:29 |
| fss | and there we go :-) | 16:30 |
| flaviamissi | niemeyer, https://codereview.appspot.com/7014047/ | 16:31 |
| flaviamissi | hi, btw | 16:31 |
| flaviamissi | x) | 16:31 |
| niemeyer | flaviamissi: Cheers! | 16:31 |
| niemeyer | flaviamissi: Hi :) | 16:31 |
| flaviamissi | niemeyer, I still have to change the regions endpoints and update some stuff... I'll probably do it tomorrow | 16:33 |
| flaviamissi | but if you could take a look | 16:33 |
| niemeyer | flaviamissi: Sounds good. I'll probably not get to that before next week | 16:33 |
| flaviamissi | niemeyer, alright then x) | 16:41 |
| flaviamissi | thanks! | 16:41 |
| fwereade | niemeyer, rogpeppe, davecheney: https://codereview.appspot.com/7198051 should be very simple: it's basically a straight move (no behaviour changes), leavened by the deletion of a whole bunch of redundant tests | 16:46 |
| rogpeppe | fwereade: looking | 16:47 |
| rogpeppe | fwereade: morning, BTW! | 16:47 |
| fwereade | rogpeppe, heyhey :) | 16:47 |
| rogpeppe | fwereade: assuming no test coverage has been lost, LGTM | 16:48 |
| fwereade | rogpeppe, I believe that to be the case -- the only lack of redundancy I could find was moved into RUS | 16:48 |
| fwereade | rogpeppe, and the intent was always that RUS be the real tests... ORUS was only there out of state-swap paranoia | 16:49 |
| rogpeppe | fwereade: we have a "working" API BTW. | 16:49 |
| fwereade | rogpeppe, sweeeet! | 16:49 |
| rogpeppe | fwereade: it only has one request so far: Machine.InstanceId | 16:50 |
| rogpeppe | fwereade: just to check end-to-end sanity | 16:50 |
| fwereade | rogpeppe, a black triangle :) | 16:50 |
| rogpeppe | fwereade: indeed so | 16:50 |
| rogpeppe | fwereade: and now i'm pondering about how much (if any) to resurrect of my old rpc package branch | 16:51 |
| fwereade | rogpeppe, oh yes? | 16:51 |
| rogpeppe | fwereade: well, i want *something* to take the dogwork out of writing rpc methods | 16:51 |
| rogpeppe | fwereade: and the standard rpc package isn't up to it | 16:51 |
| rogpeppe | fwereade: because it can't deal with per-connection auth | 16:52 |
| rogpeppe | fwereade: i'm wondering about the best way to express permissions without turning the code into a rats' nest | 16:52 |
| fwereade | rogpeppe, ha, yes, this has been somewhat on my mind | 16:53 |
| rogpeppe | fwereade: three immediate possibilities come to mind | 16:53 |
| * fwereade is listening | 16:53 | |
| rogpeppe | fwereade: 1) map users (entity names) to capabilities; check the requisite capability inside each method | 16:54 |
| rogpeppe | fwereade: 2) map capabilities to allowed users; check for the requisite capabilitiy inside each method | 16:54 |
| rogpeppe | fwereade: 3) dispense with a table and just check for permissions explicitly inside each method | 16:55 |
| rogpeppe | fwereade: rather, check for particular entities inside each method | 16:55 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: It's not just about having a capability or not | 16:55 |
| fwereade | rogpeppe, explicit per-method checks feel clearest and simplest to me... the first two smack a little of premature abstraction | 16:56 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Unit foo/1 has see config capability, for its *own* config | 16:56 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: that's the "see own config" capability :-) | 16:56 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: Heh | 16:56 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: i think we'll always need *some* explicit per-method checks | 16:57 |
| niemeyer | rogpeppe: That was my point | 16:57 |
| niemeyer | What fwereade said, though | 16:57 |
| niemeyer | I'd get a feeling for the problem first | 16:57 |
| rogpeppe | niemeyer: yes | 16:58 |
| fwereade | rogpeppe, I'm sure the right abstractions will emerge in the fullness of time ;) | 17:00 |
| * rogpeppe is off for the night. | 18:33 | |
| rogpeppe | see y'all tomorrow | 18:33 |
| fwereade | gn rog | 18:35 |
| rogpeppe | davecheney: ping | 20:03 |
| === slank is now known as slank_away | ||
| === slank_away is now known as slank | ||
| davecheney | rogpeppe: ack | 21:13 |
| davecheney | sorry i'm late | 21:13 |
| davecheney | is now too late to call ? | 21:13 |
| rogpeppe1 | davecheney: sorry, missed your ack and now it *is* too late :-) | 23:39 |
| davecheney | that is ok | 23:39 |
| davecheney | would 7 tomorrow work for you ? | 23:39 |
| davecheney | sorry 19:00 | 23:40 |
| rogpeppe1 | davecheney: 1900 would be 6am for you i think | 23:40 |
| davecheney | well, i'll ping you when I'm up | 23:40 |
| davecheney | if it works out, all the better | 23:40 |
| rogpeppe1 | davecheney: sounds good. if you're up for an early saturday morning, it'd be good to chat... | 23:41 |
| rogpeppe1 | davecheney: otherwise maybe sunday night (monday morning for you). or the day after. if you toggle your away status, i'll know if it's worth pinging you. | 23:43 |
| rogpeppe1 | davecheney: anyway, things going ok? | 23:44 |
| rogpeppe1 | davecheney: what was the last thing you saw me say? | 23:45 |
| rogpeppe1 | ach well | 23:46 |
| rogpeppe1 | davecheney_: hope to speak some time | 23:46 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!