[07:14] <tsimonq2> xnox: You were right, Adam just marked it himself. :P
[07:52] <cjwatson> tsimonq2: Difficult.  We have a part-completed thing called 'auditor' in the tree that was supposed to be for this kind of thing; but I've never looked at how far along it got, and whether it's still a sensible approach.  And it would probably require some deployment work if we stuck with that approach since IIRC it involves a separate Django app
[07:52] <cjwatson> (which seems a kind of bizarre choice for LP, which is one reason I wonder if it's still the right approach)
[08:25] <StevenK> Well, it was supposed to be a microservice because apparently they are the new hotness, but yes, I wonder that too.
[08:30] <cjwatson> Yeah, I was more thinking of Django in particular being (nowadays; possibly not when you did it) not really the obvious choice for a microservice - it needs a fair bit of ongoing upkeep
[08:30] <cjwatson> (also, hi)
[08:41] <StevenK> cjwatson: Hi! Django was not even the right fit when I wrote the thing to begin with
[08:46] <cjwatson> Heh
[08:46] <cjwatson> I've been considering a little Flask app to be an API for codehosting to be consumed by LP
[08:46] <cjwatson> Bit like the git API
[08:47] <cjwatson> (though that's pyramid.  Gotta catch 'em all)
[08:49] <StevenK> My only experience with Flask is for https://github.com/pjf/rickastley
[09:01] <cjwatson> ...
[12:19] <tsimonq2> cjwatson: OK. Would this take a particularly long time to get working if I wanted to take a shot at it?
[12:20] <tsimonq2> (Probably, eh?)
[12:24] <cjwatson> tsimonq2: Quite possibly?  I haven't looked at it much myself
[12:25] <tsimonq2> cjwatson: OK.
[12:25] <tsimonq2> cjwatson: I'll ping you when I'm at the preimplementation review. :)
[12:25] <tsimonq2> Thanks.
[12:30] <cjwatson> I'd at least consider dropping the microservice and folding it back into the main DB.  It was sort of meant to be a trial balloon I believe, but we have better examples of broken-out services these days (notably git) and it's not at all clear to me that the benefit will outweigh the operational cost of a whole separate service with a single table.
[12:30] <StevenK> cjwatson: The point there was that it could be extended to be an audit log for everything, logins, password changes, etc etc
[12:31] <cjwatson> Acknowledged, but I'm still not sure it exceeds the is-it-worth-it bar for me.  wgrant might disagree.
[12:32] <StevenK> wgrant and lifeless were the ones who pushed me down the microservice rabbit hole :-P
[12:33] <StevenK> Because yes, my original plan was another database table
[12:34] <cjwatson> I certainly agree that a generic audit facility is worth it
[12:35] <cjwatson> If we stick with auditor it'll need a reasonable amount of time from either William or me to get it actually deployed - I don't think that's something an external contributor can really do, at least not mostly
[16:40] <tsimonq2> cjwatson: Ack. Let me know once that's taken care of (even if a bit down the line) and I can work on that bit, unless it's just easy to add.