[00:31] babbageclunk: standup? [00:31] wallyworld: oh, sorry [02:21] wallyworld: "The remotefirewaller facade is removed and the ingress address watcher moved to the crossmodelrelations facade." <- that's meant to say firewaller, not crossmodelrelations, right? [02:22] axw: yeah, sorry, typo [02:23] i'll correct the pr description [02:42] wallyworld: can we go over this PR together next week? does it need to land yet? I'm super foggy and struggling to consume it all at once [02:43] axw: no worries, i'll just brnach off it for the next one [02:43] the core firewaller change is 100 lines or so but there's the boilerplate all around it [02:44] wallyworld: thanks. I've left a few minor comments, just struggling to separate refactor from functional change atm, and don't want to let bits slip through the cracks, especially in the firewaller worker [02:44] no worries. [02:45] luckily the core of the worker itself for non-cmr is unchanged [02:45] plenty of time next week [02:45] can even pair review etc [05:12] wallyworld: can you take a look at https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/7542 please? [05:12] sure [05:12] wallyworld: QAing it now [05:19] ah fark [05:21] babbageclunk: a couple of small things [05:21] wallyworld: thanks [05:23] jam: https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/7543 [05:27] wallyworld: The other IsBlahError functions in that file all take interface{} - I'm alright to change mine, but I wonder whether there's a reason for it. [05:27] hmmm, not sure, let me look [05:29] babbageclunk: i think it's just poor code tbh [05:29] i can't see a reason for it [05:31] wallyworld: yeah, looking at other places they all take error - I'll change them. [05:31] sgtm [05:42] thumper: lgtm [05:43] jam: awesome [05:48] jam: your pinger branch looks good to me, mostly comments about comments [05:48] * thumper out [05:57] wallyworld: hmm, QA hitting problems - uniter is throwing errors with the new error message - tracking it down now. [05:58] righto [06:43] wallyworld: will you be merging 2.2 into develop anytime soon? There are some CMR conflicts there and I don't want to break it [06:43] wpk: yes, as soon as final changes land [06:43] wallyworld: kk [06:44] don't worry about breaking thinhs, i can deal with it [07:05] is the proces of moving issues from 'fix commited' to 'fix released' automatical? === frankban|afk is now known as frankban [08:01] wpk: manual, but there's a script they can adapt to help [08:43] https://github.com/juju/cmd/pull/52 anyone? [09:05] wallyworld: I think I've cracked it. [10:04] wa.. [10:04] doh [10:04] wallyworld: I have not cracked it, I'm afraid. I need to discuss with you about it tomorrow. Sorry! [10:14] babbageclunk: what's theissue [10:16] wallyworld: I keep finding more places that assume you can call relation.Unit for any unit of an application, which isn't really right, but I've made it an error. [10:16] ah [10:17] babbageclunk: so worst case, we just need to tell people to upgrade to 2.2.0 first [10:17] and we haven't made it worse since it's broken anyway right now [10:17] It's not right because those RelationUnits are nonsensical - eg a wordpress subordinate logging unit in a mysql-logging relation. [10:17] Rught [10:17] Oops, right [10:18] but my PR is a fair bit away from being releasable [10:18] I mean, the one that isn't landed yet. [10:26] babbageclunk: right, but in 2.2.1 everything is fixed right? [10:26] so the only issue is people upgrading from 2.1.x [10:26] and if they go via 2.2.0 they will be ok [10:27] or have i missed something? [10:38] wallyworld: yeah, I think so - the errors I see are coming from things like unit.RelationsInScope, which constructs nonsensical RUs to call InScope on them, in which case it returns false so everything's fine. [10:40] babbageclunk: ok. ideally of course we'd be able to go from 2.1.x straight to 2.2.1 but at least we have a work around [10:40] we should still get the fix done asap [10:41] wallyworld: So maybe rather than having relation.Unit throw an error (which breaks lots of places that currently create nonsensical RUs), I could add an IsValid() and check that in the uniter API EnterScope. [10:42] wallyworld: make the sensibility check opt-in. [10:42] babbageclunk: hmmm, that might work. is that unit API enterscope the the only vector via which the upgrade issue manifests itself? [10:43] wallyworld: I think so - might just be the only place I/we've noticed it. [10:43] wallyworld: I think I'm too zonked to think about it now though. [10:45] babbageclunk: no worries [10:46] wallyworld: night! [10:47] ttyl [22:28] babbageclunk: is bug 1696509 fixed? [22:28] Bug #1696509: status-history-pruner fails under load [22:28] thumper: nope - I haven't had a chance to do the load testing that jam wants yet. [22:28] ok [22:28] I'll push it off [22:47] wallyworld: hey, so do you think I should pursue that IsValid thing I was talking about yesterday? [22:48] babbageclunk: we were'nt going to but now it looks like a race needs fiing [22:48] maybe see if there's a quick win [22:49] wallyworld: ok - the race is holding up the release anyway? [22:50] at this stage, yeah