| nurfet | hey guys, which branch I should create PR to for a new provider, develop? | 00:12 |
|---|---|---|
| thumper | anastasiamac: https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/6804 | 00:17 |
| thumper | nurfet: yes | 00:17 |
| * anastasiamac looking | 00:20 | |
| anastasiamac | thumper: +1... | 00:22 |
| thumper | ta | 00:22 |
| rick_h | thumper: ping | 01:14 |
| thumper | rick_h: hey | 01:14 |
| rick_h | thumper: hey, did you want to catch up today at all? | 01:14 |
| thumper | sure | 01:14 |
| rick_h | thumper: what's your schedule look like? | 01:15 |
| thumper | clear | 01:15 |
| rick_h | thumper: k, https://hangouts.google.com/hangouts/_/canonical.com/rick?authuser=1 | 01:15 |
| thumper | oh ffs | 02:48 |
| thumper | fuckity fuck... | 02:56 |
| * thumper considers this race | 02:56 | |
| thumper | babbageclunk: around? | 02:56 |
| thumper | got this will be horrible, but necessary... | 02:59 |
| thumper | geez | 02:59 |
| anastasiamac | thumper: sounds like fun \o/ what have u got? | 03:02 |
| thumper | a race condition | 03:02 |
| thumper | StartSync() | 03:02 |
| thumper | is used throughout the tests | 03:02 |
| thumper | to get watchers to get values | 03:02 |
| anastasiamac | i've seen these and added a few of my own | 03:03 |
| anastasiamac | some tests do not run well without them | 03:03 |
| thumper | but places assume that it is sufficient | 03:03 |
| anastasiamac | right | 03:03 |
| thumper | in the 390 tests, there are calls to change, startsync, more change, start sync | 03:03 |
| anastasiamac | i think the bigger isse (and probably better approach) is to address our watchers | 03:03 |
| thumper | now the assumption is that first change comes independently of the second | 03:03 |
| thumper | but you can't ensure that | 03:04 |
| thumper | because the start sync just says "hey, please start a sync", it doesn't wait for it, or even be sure it has started | 03:04 |
| thumper | I'm beginning to think that the test is just bollocks | 03:04 |
| thumper | this failure http://reports.vapour.ws/releases/4711/job/run-unit-tests-xenial-s390x/attempt/903#highlight | 03:05 |
| anastasiamac | i'd say we should seriously consider all intermittently failing tests and what values they bring | 03:05 |
| anastasiamac | ,ost of them need to b re-designed | 03:05 |
| thumper | func (s *watcherSuite) TestWatchUnitsKeepsEvents(c *gc.C) { | 03:05 |
| anastasiamac | or actually made into unit test | 03:05 |
| anastasiamac | yeah, that's one... but there are a lot of these sprinkled thru | 03:06 |
| anastasiamac | just look for StartSync in test files | 03:06 |
| thumper | oh I know exactly what is happening | 03:07 |
| thumper | but it's all fake | 03:07 |
| thumper | and meaningless | 03:07 |
| thumper | the test is asserting a false proposition | 03:07 |
| anastasiamac | nice | 03:08 |
| * thumper fixes test | 03:16 | |
| thumper | it is bollocks | 03:16 |
| thumper | the assertion that the events are separate is needless | 03:17 |
| thumper | and impossible to ensure without hoop jumping | 03:17 |
| thumper | so why bother | 03:18 |
| thumper | anastasiamac: https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/6806 | 03:24 |
| * anastasiamac looking | 03:24 | |
| thumper | anastasiamac: the strings watcher test helper calls start sync before any assert | 03:31 |
| thumper | the extra ones aren't necessary | 03:31 |
| anastasiamac | thumper: there was at least another test where it was necessary... let me dig it up just for ur perusal :D | 03:32 |
| anastasiamac | thumper: https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/6608 | 03:33 |
| anastasiamac | in that instance, adding additional sync eliminated the race :( | 03:33 |
| anastasiamac | syncs even | 03:33 |
| thumper | anastasiamac: yeah, using watchertest.StringsWatcherC would have saved you all that | 03:34 |
| thumper | rather that statetest | 03:34 |
| thumper | see watchertest/strings.go | 03:35 |
| thumper | watchertest.NewStringsWatcherC(c, w, s.BackingState.StartSync) | 03:35 |
| thumper | pass a "pre-assert" function in | 03:36 |
| thumper | in this case, the StartSync on the BackingState | 03:36 |
| thumper | that way you don't have to sprinkle the code with startSync calls before every assert | 03:36 |
| thumper | because it does it for you | 03:36 |
| anastasiamac | thumper: k. i'll circle back to it tomorrow... have a killer migraine atm :( | 03:39 |
| perrito666 | Morning | 09:34 |
| gsamfira_ | Hello folks. Anyone have time to review a 5 line PR? :) https://github.com/juju/utils/pull/260 | 10:54 |
| === gsamfira_ is now known as gsamfira | ||
| perrito666 | gsamfira: hi dude, long time no see | 11:20 |
| gsamfira | perrito666: yeah, it's been a while :D | 11:20 |
| perrito666 | looking at the patch | 11:20 |
| gsamfira | thanks! | 11:20 |
| perrito666 | gsamfira: I am keen to approve the patch even though you missed the QA steps :p but I would love an explanation of what are those two windowses? | 11:21 |
| gsamfira | It's been a while, I am not familiar with the new QA steps :D. I may need a crash course :P | 11:24 |
| gsamfira | One is Hyper-V server 2016. The free version of windows that just gives you the hypervisor and nothing more | 11:24 |
| gsamfira | the other is the Windows storage server. That one does not really add a new series. Just enables detection for that particular version | 11:25 |
| perrito666 | gsamfira: sure, we sent the new rules over a mail or some other not really good communication form so I cant easily point you to them (I know, we need to fix that) | 11:25 |
| perrito666 | gsamfira: so the first step is to re-propose to develop instead of master :D | 11:25 |
| gsamfira | I didn't see a develop branch in juju/utils | 11:26 |
| gsamfira | would be happy to do it | 11:26 |
| perrito666 | ahhh utils | 11:26 |
| perrito666 | I forgot we moved that | 11:26 |
| perrito666 | :p | 11:26 |
| * perrito666 makes a note about having develop o utils | 11:27 | |
| perrito666 | gsamfira: ship it | 11:27 |
| gsamfira | thanks! | 11:27 |
| === junaidal1 is now known as junaidali | ||
| junaidali | Hi guys, I have a failed machine (a controller instance in HA), I have run 'juju enable-ha' to ensure HA again but now I can't remove the failed machine | 13:06 |
| junaidali | it is giving error 'ERROR no machines were destroyed: machine <machine number> is required by the model' | 13:06 |
| junaidali | Any idea, what I'm missing here? Juju HA is already ensured. | 13:06 |
| perrito666 | junaidali: hey, I assume this is juj 2.x? | 13:12 |
| junaidali | perrito666: yes | 13:14 |
| perrito666 | mm, could you post in a pastebin your "juju status -m controller --format=yaml" ? | 13:17 |
| junaidali | perrito666: my bad, I removed two instances from my HA (out of three, need to restore from backup now), can't access controller right now | 13:23 |
| perrito666 | junaidali: ah I see | 13:24 |
| perrito666 | well ping me if you need ay help | 13:24 |
| perrito666 | ill be on this channel all day | 13:24 |
| junaidali | perrito666: Thanks, did you want to check the member-status for that machine? | 13:24 |
| junaidali | controller-member-status* | 13:24 |
| perrito666 | junaidali: yes, also I was curious what was that juju thought the statuses for those machies where | 13:25 |
| junaidali | I remember, the value was 'no-vote'. I will let you know when I restore the controller and re-enable HA | 13:26 |
| perrito666 | tx a lot | 13:27 |
| perrito666 | bbl | 20:02 |
| thumper | I hate intermittent failures | 21:19 |
| babbageclunk | thumper: yeah they suck | 21:20 |
| thumper | hmm actually I think this is another case of slow race run with complex cert sometimes takes too long | 21:22 |
| thumper | babbageclunk: https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/6809 | 21:35 |
| babbageclunk | thumper: looking | 21:37 |
| thumper | babbageclunk: many of these timeout type failures are due to expectations that the server starts quickly | 21:37 |
| thumper | on the race build, on the CI machine, generating a CA cert can take 4s and I have seen the 2048bit server cert take 10s | 21:37 |
| babbageclunk | thumper: LGTM | 21:40 |
| thumper | ta | 21:41 |
| redir | I sometimes hate intermittent failures | 21:50 |
| redir | More often I hate intermittent success | 21:51 |
| anastasiamac | :D | 21:51 |
| thumper | ha | 21:53 |
| redir | I am a bit stuck running into a bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1325085 | 21:54 |
| redir | but dannf is off since it is a holiday here today. | 21:55 |
| redir | so I can't ask if he got past that via a workaround. | 21:55 |
| redir | So now might be a good time to have a run and a think on it. | 21:56 |
| redir | the issue is theoretically fixed in libvirt 1.3.3, but xenial ships with 1.3.1 | 21:56 |
| redir | also it seems that we can't expect kvm to work on arm64 on trusty | 21:57 |
| redir | :/ | 21:57 |
| redir | bbiab | 21:59 |
| thumper | redir: if that is the case, then we should blacklist it in the code | 22:02 |
| babbageclunk | thumper: https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/6810 - bit of a weird one. | 22:07 |
| * thumper looks | 22:07 | |
| babbageclunk | thumper: Ok, I'll add the names. Do think it would be better as MoveInstancesToController(controllerUUID string, ids ...instance.Id)? | 22:10 |
| babbageclunk | thumper: Now that I've typed that out I don't think it's better. | 22:11 |
| thumper | babbageclunk: I'd keep consistency with the other methods | 22:11 |
| perrito666 | morning babbageclunk thumper ... redir? arent you in US? | 22:13 |
| redir | perrito666: yes, but planning to swap the holiday for later | 22:13 |
| * redir really goes for a run now | 22:14 | |
| babbageclunk | sure buddy | 22:14 |
| redir | heh | 23:00 |
| redir | thumper: you mean bl arm64 or trusty on arm64? | 23:02 |
| thumper | redir: trusty on arm64 | 23:02 |
| redir | k | 23:02 |
| redir | let me run it by dannf tomorrow | 23:03 |
| anastasiamac | thumper: babbageclunk: veebers: wallyworld: redir: perrito666: axw: i've added an HO to standup meeting invite... could we plz try it today instead of ...? | 23:07 |
| redir | they both work for me | 23:07 |
| anastasiamac | redir: i'd take it as a 'yes' ;) | 23:09 |
| babbageclunk | anastasiamac: fine by me | 23:09 |
| anastasiamac | babbageclunk: \o/ | 23:10 |
| babbageclunk | thumper: could you take a look at https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/6813? | 23:14 |
| thumper | babbageclunk: ack | 23:33 |
| thumper | babbageclunk: were we tagging instances with controller uuid in gce before? | 23:34 |
| * thumper needs to go kick everyone in the house off the internet for the team hangout | 23:37 | |
| babbageclunk | thumper: yup - look in ControllerInstances for example. | 23:40 |
| Miguel_Ubuntu | Tring to install Juju on a MAAS server. The bootstrap fails. There is a similar report on Ubuntu Solutions Engineering o9n github, but I cannot use the sugestion. It is the top issue. | 23:47 |
| thumper | wallyworld, anastasiamac: standup hangout? | 23:47 |
| thumper | perrito666: hangout change? | 23:48 |
| wallyworld | what's the hangout name? | 23:49 |
| perrito666 | thumper: sure, fire up a hangout | 23:49 |
| anastasiamac | HO is in standup invite incalendar | 23:49 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!