| davecheney | gocheck fans | 00:32 |
|---|---|---|
| davecheney | is there a method to check []string, contains, string ? | 00:32 |
| wallyworld | axw: partial review done, gotta go get coffee, wil finish soon | 01:08 |
| axw | wallyworld: thank you | 01:11 |
| thumper | davecheney: I've done jujud/agent now | 01:14 |
| thumper | davecheney: I don't think there is a checker for that... | 01:14 |
| davecheney | yeah, i wrote one myself | 01:14 |
| thumper | davecheney: jc.Contains is a substring contains IIRC | 01:14 |
| davecheney | urgh | 01:15 |
| thumper | davecheney: do you know of a bug number for the gccgo problem comparing interface to struct? | 01:25 |
| * thumper sighs... | 01:35 | |
| thumper | hard to make the tests pass on my branch for python-jujuclient when the tests don't even pass on trunk... | 01:36 |
| thumper | meh, blocked by https://bugs.launchpad.net/python-jujuclient/+bug/1465084 | 01:39 |
| mup | Bug #1465084: Tests fail with local provider and Juju 1.23.3 <python-jujuclient:New> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1465084> | 01:39 |
| davecheney | thumper: what bug is that ? | 01:48 |
| davecheney | thumper: ready for 1:1 | 01:53 |
| davecheney | ? | 01:53 |
| * thumper coming | 02:02 | |
| davecheney | thumper: https://github.com/go-check/check/issues/43 | 02:10 |
| davecheney | thumper: https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/2556 | 02:16 |
| axw | wallyworld: I've made a small change, about to push. added another case to the volumes which are removed on machine removal: unprovisioned machine-scoped | 02:19 |
| wallyworld | axw: ok, will look | 02:28 |
| thumper | davecheney: could you point Chris on https://github.com/go-check/check/pull/35 in the right direction of the sync call needed for the other read location? | 03:56 |
| === anthonyf is now known as Guest37830 | ||
| thumper | axw, davecheney: defers are last in first out right? | 04:43 |
| axw | yep | 04:43 |
| axw | thumper: ^ | 04:44 |
| thumper | cheers | 04:44 |
| davecheney | thumper: will do | 04:59 |
| davecheney | thumper: looks like your jujud/agent fix, didnt | 04:59 |
| * thumper grunts | 05:00 | |
| * thumper looks | 05:00 | |
| thumper | man... | 05:00 |
| thumper | hmm... | 05:01 |
| * thumper interrupts his current work | 05:01 | |
| thumper | haha | 05:03 |
| thumper | ha | 05:03 |
| thumper | ha | 05:03 |
| thumper | hmm | 05:03 |
| thumper | not sure why the firewaller isn't starting... | 05:03 |
| thumper | but I know why the test is timing out at 20 minutes | 05:03 |
| thumper | it is because the rsyslog worker restarts every x seconds | 05:03 |
| davecheney | thumper: http://paste.ubuntu.com/11717800/ | 05:03 |
| thumper | because it can | 05:03 |
| davecheney | current state of play | 05:03 |
| davecheney | there are new races in there | 05:04 |
| thumper | can't write to a dir | 05:04 |
| mup | Bug #1465115 opened: api: data race in test <juju-core:New> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1465115> | 05:12 |
| davecheney | thumper: https://github.com/juju/juju/blob/master/apiserver/apiserver.go#L187 | 05:17 |
| davecheney | WTF | 05:18 |
| * thumper looks | 05:18 | |
| davecheney | NewServer prints out the address of the listneing socket | 05:18 |
| davecheney | then ignores it | 05:18 |
| davecheney | and passes new address to the srv type !?!?? | 05:18 |
| davecheney | WTFBBQ | 05:18 |
| thumper | changes local IP address for localhost? | 05:19 |
| davecheney | yes | 05:20 |
| davecheney | change tghe listening address, the same port on localhost | 05:20 |
| davecheney | i can't even, literally, even | 05:20 |
| davecheney | thumper: | 05:32 |
| davecheney | https://github.com/juju/juju/blob/master/apiserver/server_test.go#L114 | 05:32 |
| davecheney | this is nuts | 05:32 |
| davecheney | we mask the address the apiserver is listening on | 05:33 |
| davecheney | so that we can reliably construct urls pointing to localhost | 05:33 |
| davecheney | what's the point of constructing a URL to localhost ?!?! | 05:33 |
| thumper | the comment says because it resolves nicely with IPv4 and IPv6 | 05:34 |
| davecheney | it's wrong | 05:36 |
| davecheney | nobody can be using srv.Addr | 05:37 |
| davecheney | this is another horrible string in place of typed objects problem | 05:38 |
| davecheney | hostname, portString, err := net.SplitHostPort(srv.Addr()) | 05:38 |
| davecheney | ^ treating the address like a string | 05:38 |
| thumper | hmm.. | 05:39 |
| * thumper has to go and make dinner now | 05:39 | |
| davecheney | also, the apiserver tests sleep for a minute at the end of the test | 05:40 |
| davecheney | because, well, basically, fy | 05:40 |
| davecheney | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | 06:12 |
| davecheney | PANIC: action_test.go:1: unitSuite.TearDownTest | 06:12 |
| davecheney | ... Panic: local error: bad record MAC (PC=0x414746) | 06:12 |
| davecheney | /usr/lib/go/src/pkg/runtime/panic.c:248 in panic | 06:12 |
| davecheney | /home/ubuntu/juju-core_1.25-alpha1/src/github.com/juju/testing/mgo.go:559 in resetAdminPasswordAndFetchDBNames | 06:12 |
| davecheney | /home/ubuntu/juju-core_1.25-alpha1/src/github.com/juju/testing/mgo.go:503 in MgoInstance.Reset | 06:12 |
| davecheney | /home/ubuntu/juju-core_1.25-alpha1/src/github.com/juju/testing/mgo.go:605 in MgoSuite.TearDownTest | 06:12 |
| davecheney | /home/ubuntu/juju-core_1.25-alpha1/src/github.com/juju/juju/juju/testing/conn.go:113 in JujuConnSuite.TearDownTest | 06:12 |
| davecheney | /usr/lib/go/src/pkg/reflect/value.go:345 in Value.Call | 06:12 |
| davecheney | /usr/lib/go/src/pkg/runtime/proc.c:1394 in goexit | 06:12 |
| davecheney | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | 06:12 |
| davecheney | PANIC: unit_test.go:317: unitSuite.TestPublicAddress | 06:12 |
| davecheney | ffs | 06:12 |
| dimitern | jam, o/ sorry for being late, omw | 07:06 |
| jam | dimitern: actually I was looking for you | 07:06 |
| jam | it looks like Mark moved the spec meeting to today | 07:07 |
| jam | so I've got a conflict | 07:07 |
| dimitern | I see | 07:07 |
| dimitern | ok, so no meeting then? | 07:07 |
| dimitern | :) | 07:07 |
| jam | dimitern: I'm happy to reschedule as it seems like we've been missing eachother. But I should also see you at standup I guess. | 07:07 |
| dimitern | jam, indeed | 07:07 |
| jam | dimitern: but yes, enjoy your breakfast | 07:08 |
| dimitern | jam, thanks :) | 07:14 |
| mup | Bug #1465157 opened: uniter/filter: FilterSuite.TestUnitRemoval failure in CI <juju-core:New> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1465157> | 07:27 |
| jam | wallyworld: ping | 07:57 |
| wallyworld | hi | 07:58 |
| wallyworld | thanks for doc comments | 07:58 |
| wallyworld | i need to rework examples etc to match changes | 07:58 |
| jam | wallyworld: Did you see the changes on the draft spec ? | 08:03 |
| jam | wallyworld: mark and I met today and we had some thoughts on the syntax | 08:03 |
| wallyworld | jam: yeah, i already acted on them | 08:03 |
| jam | wallyworld: which I'm happy to discuss with you via whatever mechanism you prefer :) | 08:03 |
| wallyworld | i've got to update doc examples to match | 08:03 |
| jam | wallyworld: k, I might have been messing with your changes then, cause I was trying to put them into the use case spec as suggestions | 08:04 |
| wallyworld | ah, i haven't updated the se cases yet | 08:04 |
| wallyworld | that's on my todo list | 08:04 |
| wallyworld | jam: about to go eat dinner, i'll ping you later on | 08:04 |
| jam | wallyworld: k | 08:05 |
| TheMue | dimitern: now you're frozen | 08:36 |
| wallyworld | jam: did you want to talk about CLI syntax? | 08:56 |
| voidspace | dimitern: ping | 09:02 |
| dimitern | voidspace, omw | 09:02 |
| wallyworld | fwereade: hey, are you able to look at and comment on bug 1464470 | 09:06 |
| mup | Bug #1464470: A subordinate charm hook scheduled to run(but waiting for the principal charm hook to release the lock) goes to an error state after the principal charm hook triggers a reboot. <1.24> <1.25> <hooks> <juju> <reboot> <regression> <subordinate> <windows> <juju-core:Triaged> <juju-core | 09:06 |
| mup | 1.24:Triaged> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1464470> | 09:06 |
| wallyworld | some initial analysis has been done | 09:06 |
| wallyworld | needs a sme :-) | 09:06 |
| fwereade | wallyworld, right, I need to think a bit more about that | 09:07 |
| wallyworld | sure np :-) | 09:07 |
| fwereade | wallyworld, I think the fix is correct in spirit but I haven't figured out all the actual consequences | 09:08 |
| wallyworld | yup | 09:08 |
| voidspace | dooferlad: https://github.com/juju/juju/compare/devices-api-maas...voidspace:generate-macs | 09:09 |
| voidspace | dooferlad: I can talk to you about that after standup | 09:13 |
| dooferlad | voidspace: thanks - sounds good | 09:13 |
| dimitern | voidspace, o/ | 09:51 |
| voidspace | dimitern: omw | 09:56 |
| voidspace | dimitern: there | 09:57 |
| * Mmike grabs food | 12:44 | |
| === anthonyf is now known as Guest35437 | ||
| === ashipika1 is now known as ashipika | ||
| rogpeppe1 | axw: any chance you're around? :) | 13:32 |
| === lazyPower|eow is now known as lazyPower | ||
| === kadams54 is now known as kadams54-away | ||
| mup | Bug #1403955 opened: DHCP's "Option interface-mtu 9000" is being ignored on bridge interface br0 <cts> <kvm> <lxc> <network> <juju-core:Triaged> <isc-dhcp (Ubuntu):Confirmed> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1403955> | 14:19 |
| mup | Bug #1465307 opened: 1.24.0: Lots of "agent is lost, sorry!" messages <landscape> <juju-core:New> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1465307> | 14:31 |
| === kadams54-away is now known as kadams54 | ||
| mup | Bug #1465317 opened: Wily builds fail: panic: osVersion reported an error: Could not determine series <packaging> <wily> <juju-core:Triaged> <juju-core 1.22:Triaged> <juju-core 1.24:Triaged> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1465317> | 15:01 |
| dimitern | voidspace, you have a review btw | 15:03 |
| voidspace | dimitern: cool | 15:03 |
| voidspace | dimitern: I realised there's a bit of code missing though | 15:03 |
| voidspace | dimitern: which probably also means missing tests :-/ | 15:04 |
| dimitern | voidspace, oh really? | 15:04 |
| voidspace | dimitern: I need to populate NetworkInfo for kvm broker as well as lxc broker... | 15:04 |
| dimitern | voidspace, well, I trust your judgment then :) | 15:04 |
| dimitern | voidspace, oh, of course | 15:04 |
| voidspace | dimitern: the important code is in configureConatinerNetworking which is used by both lxc and kvm brokers, and just happens to live in lxc-broker.go | 15:04 |
| voidspace | so I was only manually testing that mac addresses were used by the lxc broker | 15:05 |
| voidspace | when I discovered that NetworkInfo was empty | 15:05 |
| voidspace | it's a one line fix, but also needs some test fixes too I think | 15:05 |
| voidspace | ah no, everything passes | 15:05 |
| voidspace | I'd better add one more test for this though | 15:05 |
| voidspace | dimitern: ok, will look at your review - thanks | 15:05 |
| voidspace | dimitern: wow, a Ship It! first time | 15:06 |
| voidspace | dimitern: shame it wasn't complete ;-) | 15:06 |
| dimitern | voidspace, ") | 15:08 |
| dimitern | voidspace, :) even | 15:08 |
| voidspace | dimitern: updated | 15:19 |
| rogpeppe1 | i am consistently seeing test failures in worker/provisioner (TestStartInstanceWithStorage and TestStartInstanceLoopMountsDisallowed) | 15:39 |
| rogpeppe1 | can anyone get those tests to pass, or is it just me? | 15:39 |
| rogpeppe1 | this is on juju-core tip, BTW | 15:40 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: there's a data race I believe | 15:40 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: really? | 15:40 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: normally those tests just pass silently | 15:40 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: yes | 15:40 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: do you know what the race is? | 15:41 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: startInstance in lxcBrokerSuite calls fakeAPI methods | 15:41 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: these have an assert in them | 15:41 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: i've removed the assert | 15:41 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: ah, that's why you have the problem then | 15:41 |
| natefinch | rogpeppe1: both those tests pass for me btw | 15:41 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: (it always failed anyway) | 15:41 |
| rogpeppe1 | natefinch: interesting. | 15:42 |
| voidspace | the assert failing was halting the test prematurely | 15:42 |
| voidspace | natefinch: they will pass until you remove the assert in the fake API | 15:42 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: this branch fixes it | 15:42 |
| voidspace | <rogpeppe1> voidspace: i've removed the assert | 15:42 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: ah, that makes sense | 15:42 |
| voidspace | dammit | 15:42 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/2565 | 15:42 |
| natefinch | voidspace: well, rogpeppe1 asked if it passed on tip, and the answer is that it passes on tip for me... not with any changes :) | 15:43 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: but that's merging onto a feature branch | 15:43 |
| voidspace | natefinch: right | 15:43 |
| voidspace | fair enough :-) | 15:43 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: it would be great to submit it is a separate fix if poss | 15:43 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: I believe that dooferlad is extracting the data race fix as a separate fix and merging it to trunk | 15:43 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: ah, it's merging already | 15:43 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: so "in progress" | 15:43 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: it's not really a race | 15:43 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: more like a bug in gocheck | 15:44 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: ok, sounds plausible | 15:44 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: ok, so i'll ignore the test failures for the time being. hopefully your branch will land. | 15:44 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: what's the *gitjujutesting.Stub field for in the fakeAPI struct? | 15:45 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: it's Stub that provides MethodCall, NextErr and SetErrors | 15:46 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: and CheckCalls | 15:47 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: ah, so the required interface has grown, i see | 15:47 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: well, Stub is an implementation not an interface | 15:47 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: those methods weren't provided before by fakeAPI, so i can only presume that the required interface that it's implementing has grown | 15:48 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: nope | 15:48 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: Stub provides useful mocking methods for fakeAPI | 15:48 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: hmm, i must be missing something then | 15:48 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: nothing to do with the API that fakeAPI provides | 15:49 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: ok, i must have missed where they're used | 15:49 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: they're not required for fakeAPI they're useful for testing | 15:49 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: grep through that diff to see them in use | 15:49 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: CheckCalls uses the results of MethodCall | 15:49 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: NextErr uses the errors set by SetErrors | 15:50 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: i think it's somewhat misleading to embed Stub as an anonymous field | 15:50 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: it makes it look like it's being used to expose methods outside of fakeAPI | 15:50 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: what do you mean by "outside"? | 15:50 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: it's the intended use of Stub I believe | 15:51 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: the whole point of fakeAPI is to fulfil the provisioner.APICalls interface | 15:51 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: by embedding Stub, you make it look as if that is helping to fulfil that interface | 15:51 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: right, and Stub is a helper to do that | 15:51 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: the name is a big clue :-) | 15:52 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: whereas it's actually just an implementation detail *inside* fakeAPI | 15:52 |
| voidspace | as well as how it's used | 15:52 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: i don't understand - none of the methods required by provisioner.APICalls are implemented by Stub | 15:53 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: so the fact that it's embedded isn't helping at all | 15:53 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: it's a helper for writing stubs | 15:53 |
| voidspace | it doesn't take much beyond knowing [anything about] the API it provides to realise what it's for | 15:53 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: generally we embed fields for a reason, usually because we need the methods they implement in the method set of the object they're embedded in | 15:54 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: Stub is regularly embedded in fakes like this | 15:54 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: in this case, it seems to be embedded just to avoid an explicit field name reference | 15:54 |
| voidspace | and knowing what Stub doesn't it isn't reasonable to think that Stub actually provides any methods of the external API that the fake object provides | 15:54 |
| voidspace | so you seem to be making a purist point rather than a practical one | 15:55 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: it would be much more obvious that it wasn't involved if it wasn't embedded | 15:55 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: i'm saying that it makes the code less readable | 15:55 |
| voidspace | and I'm saying I disagree | 15:55 |
| voidspace | if it is a confusion it can only be if you haven't seen Stub before, and even then only momentarily | 15:56 |
| voidspace | and this is how Stub is used in many places in our code | 15:56 |
| voidspace | presumably you're the first to complain | 15:56 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: the Stub documentation can't agree with itself whether it's supposed to be embedded or not | 15:58 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: i see that it's used in other places like that, and i think it's a mistake | 15:58 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: i think it makes a big difference whether the method set of an object is immediately seeable or not. | 15:59 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: might i ask *why* you think it's a good idea to embed it, rather than using a named field? | 16:00 |
| voidspace | I don't think it's a bad idea | 16:00 |
| voidspace | and given that fake objects provide a specific interface (that being their point) | 16:00 |
| voidspace | and Stub objects provide a different, very specific, set of methods | 16:00 |
| voidspace | I don't think there's any reasonable possibility for confusion once you know what Stub does | 16:01 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: but what's the advantage of embedding? | 16:01 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: it can only be that it's slightly less code to use, i guess | 16:01 |
| voidspace | I don't see any advantage to mandating *not embediding* | 16:01 |
| voidspace | which is the direction you want to go | 16:01 |
| voidspace | right, slightly extra effort | 16:01 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: embedding imposes greater cognitive load on the reader of the code | 16:02 |
| voidspace | I disagree | 16:02 |
| voidspace | as I've already stated | 16:02 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: "extra effort" being as hard as ".stub" | 16:02 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: you've said "once you know what Stub does" - that's what i mean by extra cognitive load | 16:03 |
| voidspace | extra cognitive load being as hard as "that's a stub method" | 16:03 |
| voidspace | to understand the code you *need* to know what it does | 16:03 |
| voidspace | you can't get away from that! | 16:03 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: i don't recognise the term "stub" from normal Go idioms | 16:04 |
| voidspace | it's a programming term | 16:04 |
| voidspace | :-) | 16:04 |
| voidspace | language agnostic | 16:04 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: it's a terrible name - it means nothing really | 16:04 |
| voidspace | getting you a link to the classic martin fowler paper | 16:04 |
| voidspace | it's the generally used one | 16:05 |
| voidspace | http://martinfowler.com/articles/mocksArentStubs.html | 16:05 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: it would be better as "APIStub" perhaps | 16:05 |
| voidspace | see that article | 16:05 |
| voidspace | Stub itself can be used for any interface in juju - not just for APIs | 16:06 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: by the terminology of that article, i don't think it's either a mock or a stub | 16:06 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: i think it's a helper | 16:06 |
| voidspace | yeah, a helper for writing stubs | 16:06 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: sure | 16:06 |
| voidspace | I didn't write it or name it either by the way | 16:06 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: i think it's confusing to call it a stub when it's not, especially as "testing.Stub" tells you nothing at all about what it might be useful for | 16:07 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: ok | 16:08 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: and i think that embedding is conflating the testing.Stub helper with the stub itself in an unhelpful way | 16:08 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: i'll stop now. you weren't responsible :) | 16:08 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: :-) | 16:08 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: it feels like something implemented by someone that's still thinking in an inheritance-based way, not someone that actually knows Go well | 16:09 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: I don't object to a named field (with the exception I guess if that has to be a public field if you're writing re-usable stubs) | 16:09 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: however I don't philosphically disagree with embedding either | 16:09 |
| voidspace | it certainly works fine not embedded - at the cost of an extra level of indirection for every use | 16:10 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: if i was writing a wrapper around Stub that just added some functionality, *then* embedding would be appropriate | 16:10 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: that's not a runtime cost, of course | 16:11 |
| voidspace | I don't care about runtime cost until it's proven to be an issue | 16:11 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: +1 | 16:11 |
| voidspace | I'm talking about cognitive overhead for the reader of the code ;-) | 16:11 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: for me, the "cost" of an extra level of indirection is actually a net benefit to the reader of the code | 16:11 |
| voidspace | deliberate winky-smiley as I'm provoking you... | 16:11 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: because you know exactly which field is being routed to | 16:12 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: I understand what you're saying | 16:12 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: BTW you could use Stub as a value in the struct - no need to declare it as a pointer | 16:13 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: that would probably simplify it a bit | 16:15 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: just to show that I'm not utterly recalcitrant I'll change it to a field, and a value rather than a pointer | 16:16 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: in a follow up | 16:16 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: that branch landed - but only on a feature branch, not on trunk | 16:16 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: thanks, that would be appreciated | 16:16 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: dooferlad is working on porting the relevant bits to trunk | 16:16 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: oh bugger | 16:16 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: i just pulled, hoping that would fix my tests | 16:16 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: so you can have exactly the same conversation with him... | 16:17 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: afraid not, unless you pulled our feature branch! | 16:17 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: I'll chat to dooferlad about it, I presume he's not around *right now* or he would already have popped up | 16:17 |
| voidspace | dooferlad: ping if you're around | 16:17 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: (I did talk to him this morning about porting these changes across - so I know he's working on it) | 16:18 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: perhaps this one fix could be ported separately | 16:18 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: yep | 16:18 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: he may already be part the way through it | 16:18 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: it involves changes to lxc-broker_test.go *and* kvm-broker_test.go (as kvm broker uses the fakeAPI as well) | 16:19 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: so if he's started it would be quicker to get that in than for me to unpick the branch I've just landed | 16:19 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: but if he hasn't done it I can do it tomorrow (morning hopefully) | 16:19 |
| dooferlad | voidspace, rogpeppe1: Hi, was just AFK for 10 minutes saying hello to the family since they just got home. I am just about to push my changes after a quick readthrough. They pass all the tests I have done. | 16:24 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: thanks. it would be nice to have juju-core tests passing locally | 16:24 |
| dooferlad | rogpeppe1, voidspace: http://reviews.vapour.ws/r/1936/ | 16:42 |
| dooferlad | there will be a 1.4 change landing soon | 16:42 |
| dooferlad | s/landing/being proposed/ | 16:43 |
| rogpeppe1 | dooferlad: 1.4 version of what? Go? | 16:43 |
| voidspace | dooferlad: looking | 16:43 |
| dooferlad | rogpeppe1: juju | 16:45 |
| rogpeppe1 | dooferlad: ah, i've totally lost track of juju version numbering :) | 16:46 |
| rogpeppe1 | dooferlad: aren't we at ~1.25 ? | 16:46 |
| rogpeppe1 | dooferlad: or is this a version for some different aspect of juju? | 16:47 |
| voidspace | dooferlad: I presume you mean 1.24... | 16:47 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: you are correct | 16:47 |
| dooferlad | rogpeppe1: oh, 1.24. Just being distracted by a tiny cute person. Sorry! | 16:47 |
| rogpeppe1 | voidspace: ah, that really confused me! | 16:47 |
| dooferlad | OK, need to call it a day. The fix backporting involves a little more than a cherry pick and fixing up the juju/testing version so I will get it done tomorrow morning. | 16:52 |
| voidspace | dooferlad: you have a review | 16:52 |
| dooferlad | voidspace: thanks | 16:52 |
| voidspace | dooferlad: mostly trivial - but there's one test that I think might be wrong | 16:53 |
| dooferlad | voidspace: will get to it tomorrow first thing. Thanks for taking a look! | 16:53 |
| voidspace | dooferlad: cool | 16:53 |
| rogpeppe1 | wow, cmd/juju tests now taking 9m to run! | 16:57 |
| natefinch | rogpeppe1: is that better or worse than they used to be for you? (I'm hoping worse) | 17:36 |
| rogpeppe1 | natefinch: i'm pretty sure it's quite a bit worse | 17:36 |
| natefinch | actually, I guess better is better.... but still. 9m sucks | 17:36 |
| rogpeppe1 | natefinch: i remember 5 minutes, but 9?! | 17:36 |
| natefinch | rogpeppe1: is that on tip? | 17:36 |
| rogpeppe1 | natefinch: yeah | 17:36 |
| rogpeppe1 | natefinch: 9m for one package| | 17:37 |
| rogpeppe1 | ! | 17:37 |
| rogpeppe1 | natefinch: i'm off now, back on wed | 17:38 |
| natefinch | rogpeppe1: have fun! | 17:38 |
| rogpeppe1 | natefinch: will do | 17:38 |
| natefinch | rogpeppe1: fwiw, go test in cmd/juju runs in 2m35s on my machine on tip | 17:41 |
| natefinch | note that's go test, not go test ./... if that makes a difference | 17:41 |
| voidspace | rogpeppe1: they time out on my machine | 17:42 |
| natefinch | voidspace: doh | 17:42 |
| voidspace | yep :-) | 17:42 |
| voidspace | natefinch: 2m35! I'm on vivid | 17:43 |
| voidspace | I wonder if they're worse on vivid | 17:43 |
| natefinch | voidspace: I'm on utopic... it might be my SSD, it's a Samsung 850 pro, itsuper fast. | 17:43 |
| natefinch | s/itsuper/it's super/ | 17:44 |
| natefinch | voidspace: I noticed davecheney complaining about the time tests took, and his numbers were like 30 mins for the whole suite | 17:45 |
| natefinch | voidspace: I'm running go 1.3.3 right now (just happens to be what I last switched to), and I run gomaxprocs=8. Not sure if any of that makes a big difference or not | 17:45 |
| voidspace | natefinch: I think my SSD is an 840 - not going to be a *great* deal of difference I don't think | 17:48 |
| voidspace | I'll try them on my laptop | 17:48 |
| voidspace | natefinch: I'm running go 1.2.1 maybe that hurts | 17:48 |
| === kadams54 is now known as kadams54-away | ||
| natefinch | voidspace: newer versions are definitely faster, though I wouldn't think they'd be that much faster | 17:50 |
| voidspace | gomaxprocs wouldn't affect the timing of one package, as that will be a single process | 17:50 |
| natefinch | voidspace: good point | 17:51 |
| voidspace | natefinch: if it makes it faster enough to not timeout that would be progress for me... | 17:52 |
| voidspace | updating to 1.3 | 17:52 |
| natefinch | voidspace: you're on an XPS 15, too, right? | 17:53 |
| voidspace | natefinch: this is on my desktop | 17:53 |
| natefinch | voidspace: which should be even faster, presumably | 17:53 |
| voidspace | natefinch: yeah, but not much | 17:54 |
| voidspace | trying now with go 1.3.3 | 17:54 |
| voidspace | natefinch: I wonder if vivid is the difference | 17:54 |
| voidspace | natefinch: my laptop is utopic | 17:54 |
| voidspace | natefinch: I'll try on that | 17:54 |
| perrito666 | man running tests on a bar drives all kinds of odd looks to your screen | 18:37 |
| natefinch | heh | 18:37 |
| * perrito666 deploys a lot of things on a bar, will start hearing angry people in 3, 2, 1 .... | 18:41 | |
| perrito666 | Brb | 19:11 |
| katco | perrito666: natefinch: cherylj: wwitzel3: i need a volunteer to look at bug 1465307 | 19:20 |
| mup | Bug #1465307: 1.24.0: Lots of "agent is lost, sorry!" messages <blocker> <landscape> <regression> <juju-core:Triaged> <juju-core 1.24:Triaged> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1465307> | 19:20 |
| natefinch | mup: infer RandomChoice[{'natefinch', 'howAboutThatNateGuy', 'ummmNate'}] | 19:25 |
| mup | natefinch: WolframAlpha request failed. Please try again soon. | 19:25 |
| * natefinch sighs | 19:25 | |
| katco | lol | 19:25 |
| natefinch | katco: well, regardless of mup trying to save me from myself, I can volunteer | 19:26 |
| katco | natefinch: :p ok ty... please remember to assign yourself to the bug and keep the comments updated w/ progress | 19:26 |
| katco | natefinch: fwiw, i don't think it has to do with leadership, i think the messages were just symptoms of something larger not running, but that was just from a very cursory analysis | 19:27 |
| natefinch | katco: doesn't look like a happy environment, that's for sure | 19:29 |
| katco | natefinch: yeah | 19:29 |
| natefinch | dpb1: can you post some logs to #1465307? | 19:44 |
| mup | Bug #1465307: 1.24.0: Lots of "agent is lost, sorry!" messages <blocker> <landscape> <regression> <juju-core:Triaged> <juju-core 1.24:Triaged> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1465307> | 19:44 |
| === alexisb is now known as alexisb_lunch | ||
| dpb1 | natefinch: I downloaded everything, let me look through | 19:46 |
| dpb1 | natefinch: ok, check those, if you want any more let me know | 19:56 |
| dpb1 | natefinch: so far, I don't really have any issue repeating this. | 19:56 |
| === kadams54 is now known as kadams54-away | ||
| natefinch | dpb1: what are the repro steps? | 20:21 |
| dpb1 | natefinch: I'm deploying a customish bundle. I could try minimizing it. I would say, bootstrap + 5 lxc + 3 other nodes. all with the ubunt charm, that would probably be enough to hit it. | 20:27 |
| natefinch | dpb1: I can't reproduce it just deploying the ubuntu charm to a bunch of machines. If you could get some minimal repro steps, that would be great. | 21:00 |
| natefinch | dpb1: I'll be on later to look into it some more. | 21:00 |
| === natefinch is now known as natefinch-afk | ||
| dpb1 | ok | 21:02 |
| voidspace | natefinch-afk: hey, on my utopic laptop cmd/juju takes 248 seconds | 21:24 |
| voidspace | natefinch-afk: still slower than your machine (will try again with newer version of go) | 21:24 |
| voidspace | natefinch-afk: but they time out on my vivid desktop | 21:24 |
| mup | Bug #1465404 opened: worker/provisioner: fail lxcBrokerSuite.TestStartInstanceLoopMountsDisallowed <juju-core:New> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1465404> | 21:26 |
| === alexisb_lunch is now known as alexisb | ||
| === anthonyf is now known as Guest93759 | ||
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!