[08:01] <mup> Issue operator#455 opened: JUJU_MODEL_NAME not initialized by harness <Created by stub42> <https://github.com/canonical/operator/issues/455>
[08:20] <mup> Issue operator#455 closed: JUJU_MODEL_NAME not initialized by harness <Created by stub42> <Closed by stub42> <https://github.com/canonical/operator/issues/455>
[09:39] <Chipaca> i'm not half asleep, *you're* half asleep
[09:41]  * bthomas wonders if Chipaca is talking in his sleep
[09:43] <Chipaca> bthomas: too little sleep is indeed the problem
[09:43] <bthomas> Indeed. I recently read it can contribute to build of beta-amyloid plaques in the brain too.
[09:44] <Chipaca> ooh! are they blue plaques?
[09:45] <bthomas> Don't know their color. But I have redshift installed on all my devices so when I try to read and fall asleep the blue light of devices does not disrupt my sleep cycle.
[09:46] <Chipaca> my wifi cuts out at 11pm, but i still didn't get to sleep until past 2 :-(
[09:46] <bthomas> Oh no. I am surprised though since you have a healthier lifestyle than me, going for runs and all that.
[09:47] <Chipaca> heh, maybe i should've gone for a run yesterday
[09:47] <Chipaca> i was still sore from running saturday though 🙂
[09:48] <bthomas> Also latent stress can disrupt sleep. I learn't from a BBC documentary that sleep can be induced by a drop of body temperature. So having a hot shower before going to bed one gets sleep when body temperature drops.
[09:49] <Chipaca> showers wake me up though
[09:49] <Chipaca> anyway, it's not too bad
[09:49] <Chipaca> used to be i'd be weeks on end like this
[09:49] <Chipaca> now it's only once a week or two
[09:50] <Chipaca> so the running has helped
[09:50] <bthomas> That sounds better.
[09:57] <mup> Issue operator#456 opened: Test harness relations missing Juju managed data <Created by stub42> <https://github.com/canonical/operator/issues/456>
[10:04] <mup> Issue operator#457 opened: Test harness relations cannot be initialized with data <Created by stub42> <https://github.com/canonical/operator/issues/457>
[12:01] <mup> Issue operator#458 opened: a charm with an empty actions.yaml trips up the framework <Created by chipaca> <https://github.com/canonical/operator/issues/458>
[13:54] <bthomas> Is there a specification or standard on what data *must/will* be provided for each event type. In particular relation_departed and relation_broken. I presume for the former it is at least unit name. Though the latter could be relation name it does not seem necessary.
[14:04] <Chipaca> i don't think there is, hence my suggestion to look at what juju does IRL
[14:08] <Chipaca> tests pass! woo. time for a break.
[14:30] <bthomas> Not related to my changes but I am seeing "KeyError: 'google'" at "operator/test/test_infra.py", line 86, in test_pep257 on my system. Could be a pydocstyle version issue but "requirements-dev.txt" does not specify which minimal version of pydocstyle is required. If I switch from "google" to "pep257" convention then the test runs but fails because it detects many violations of D200, D204, D205, D400, D401 and D413.
[14:31]  * bthomas goes to make some coffee
[14:41] <bthomas> If no one has any objection I would like to switch from google to PEP257 convention, add the violations to the current ignore list, create a issue to fix all PEP257 violations, and undertake to do so myself in a future PR.
[14:42] <bthomas> Chipaca: ^
[15:21] <bthomas> yay! first remove relation test passed
[15:35] <bthomas> Looks like now one is objecting to ^ :-). Changes made. Will be part of my PR. Too late now :-).
[15:44] <Chipaca> bthomas: -1 to switching docstyle conventions
[15:48] <bthomas> Chipaca : hmm OK. I am not hung up on it. Any ideas why I am seen the error mentioned above.
[15:49] <Chipaca> bthomas: no 🙂 what changed at your end?
[15:49] <bthomas> nothing changed. It is not related to my changes. I can stash them and still see the error.
[15:51] <bthomas> Also I would +1 for PEP257 official standard. They violations are all silly and easy to fix but kind of enforce formatting consistency like linkbreaks and full stops etc. If you change you mind I can fix them after this PR.
[15:53] <Chipaca> bthomas: I might be misunderstanding, but if I am not, you're suggesting changing from a convention from 2011 (google's) to one from 2001 (pep257)
[15:55] <bthomas> Chipaca: that I am not sure about the date. I tried the switch from `.google` to `.pep257` because I was getting a KeyError `.google`. I think this may be because of pydocstyle version. I think requirements-dev needs a minimal version for pydocstyle.
[15:55] <bthomas> Can look into it once I get all my unit tests in place.
[15:56] <bthomas> PEP257 seems to be stricter than google though.
[15:56] <Chipaca> bthomas: what version pydocstyle do you have?
[15:56] <Chipaca> bthomas: i'm not certain about those dates either
[15:56] <Chipaca> bthomas: but, we should discuss this when facu is around
[15:56] <Chipaca> not sneak it in while he's away :-D
[15:57] <Chipaca> certainly let's discuss it
[15:57] <Chipaca> but meanwhile let's unblock you
[15:57] <bthomas> Ok, Got it. Will discuss with facu. My docstyle is version is 2.1.1
[15:57]  * bthomas promises to be good and not sneaky :-)
[15:57] <Chipaca> bthomas: how?
[15:57] <Chipaca> bthomas: i have 5.1.1 here; how do you have 2.1.1? :)
[15:57] <bthomas> Chipaca: I am not unblocked
[15:57] <bthomas> opps meant blocked
[15:58] <bthomas> no big deal.
[15:58] <bthomas> So it is indeed version, issue. I will update. I used ubuntu package.
[15:58] <Chipaca> ahhh
[15:58] <Chipaca> also, aaah
[15:58] <bthomas> did not realize tit was that old
[15:58] <bthomas> I am on focal fosa 20.04
[15:58] <Chipaca> i cannot comment on the age of tits
[15:58] <bthomas> :-)
[15:58] <bthomas> oops
[15:58] <bthomas> NSFW
[15:59] <Chipaca> probably pretty old, as passerines are a very large family
[15:59] <bthomas> he he
[15:59] <Chipaca> and speciation takes time
[16:00]  * bthomas rofl
[16:04] <bthomas> Chipaca: Should we remove_relation_unit(self, relation_id: int, remote_unit_name: str) OR remove_relation_unit(self, relation_name: str, remote_unit_name: str) ?
[16:04] <bthomas> Note first argument and type
[16:06] <bthomas> It is all a question of if we expect client to retain relation id through their workflow.
[16:06] <bthomas> s/through/through out/
[16:08]  * bthomas tries to do a quick tea before standup
[16:26] <bthomas> Current it is implemented as relation id for first argument
[16:38] <Chipaca> bthomas: sorry was in a meeting
[16:39] <Chipaca> answered in the standup now
[16:41] <bthomas> agreed. leaving as is for now.
[16:59] <mup> PR operator#459 opened: Treat empty actions.yaml as no actions.yaml <Created by chipaca> <https://github.com/canonical/operator/pull/459>
[17:00] <Chipaca> bthomas: ^ if you have a mo'
[17:02] <bthomas> having a look.
[17:05] <bthomas> done
[17:06] <Chipaca> bthomas: thanks 🙂
[17:06] <Chipaca> the meat of the change is two lines, the rest of the diff is tests 🙂
[17:06] <Chipaca> maybe i should've lead with that
[17:06] <Chipaca> anyway, thanks
[17:11] <bthomas> saw that.
[17:20] <bthomas> Chipaca: forgot to mention in standup, for the remove relation tests I need to do harness.begin() because the removing implementation in harness uses self._charm to emit events. Can I presume that a client in a test (or not ?) will not try to remove a relation or unit without doing harness.begin(). I can ofcourse defend against _charm is None but will not be able to emit events, at least as implemented now.
[17:21] <Chipaca> bthomas: emiting events should be guarded for _charm being None and events being disabled
[17:21] <bthomas> got it thanks
[17:21] <Chipaca> bthomas: as in the 'if self._charm is None or not self._hooks_enabled' guards you'll see
[17:21] <bthomas> indeed
[17:22] <Chipaca> that's what those are about 🙂
[18:10] <mup> PR operator#460 opened: Remove relation test <Created by balbirthomas> <https://github.com/canonical/operator/pull/460>
[18:11] <bthomas> Chipaca: https://github.com/canonical/operator/pull/460 Just draft for now. Will sleep over it tonight, think it over again, self review tomorrow and create PR.
[18:11] <mup> PR #460: Remove relation test <Created by balbirthomas> <https://github.com/canonical/operator/pull/460>
[18:12] <bthomas> However if you have a need for a catharsis and can't find a punching bag, feel free to do get youre release :-)
[18:13]  * bthomas is tempted to call it a day for now
[18:20]  * bthomas EODs but is still around for a bit