2019-03-07 03:49:12 UTC - keonhee Kim: @Saurab Joshi
Let’s check three things below.
- Is your apihost port 80 right?
- Is there a `@` character in the database password?
- Connect DB admin (maybe `172.17.0.1:5984/_utils`)
`whisk_alarms_alarmservice` `Views` `triggers_by_worker` Check
to
sciabarracom commented on issue #1: Proposed changes to action_loop
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-runtime-rust/pull/1#issuecomment-470725579
Ok give me the time to check if it builds and I will merge
rdiaz82 commented on issue #1: Proposed changes to action_loop
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-runtime-rust/pull/1#issuecomment-470725225
I think that we should move this conversation to other place, to not spam
the PR. I think that we can merge it and continue from
rdiaz82 commented on issue #1: Proposed changes to action_loop
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-runtime-rust/pull/1#issuecomment-470724708
we can create one specific for that, what about `{"result": "error
generating output response"}` or something like that
sciabarracom commented on issue #1: Proposed changes to action_loop
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-runtime-rust/pull/1#issuecomment-470722586
Which JSON the mainloop will emit if the result is an error?
rdiaz82 commented on issue #1: Proposed changes to action_loop
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-runtime-rust/pull/1#issuecomment-470720792
I would like to see this method signature `fn main(input_data: Value) ->
Result` I have tested locally and it works nice
rdiaz82 commented on a change in pull request #1: Proposed changes to
action_loop
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-runtime-rust/pull/1#discussion_r263592618
##
File path: rust1.32/src/action_loop/src/main.rs
##
@@ -1,49 +1,46 @@
-extern crate
sciabarracom commented on issue #1: Proposed changes to action_loop
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-runtime-rust/pull/1#issuecomment-470717971
Is it possible to get a fix also for the example?
This is an
bruceadams edited a comment on issue #1: Proposed changes to action_loop
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-runtime-rust/pull/1#issuecomment-470712862
My understanding it that Rust projects that produce a binary _should_ check
`Cargo.lock` into source control and Rust
bruceadams edited a comment on issue #1: Proposed changes to action_loop
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-runtime-rust/pull/1#issuecomment-470714058
Ah, yup. Right there in the documentation
https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/guide/cargo-toml-vs-cargo-lock.html
> If
bruceadams commented on a change in pull request #1: Proposed changes to
action_loop
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-runtime-rust/pull/1#discussion_r263590593
##
File path: rust1.32/src/action_loop/src/main.rs
##
@@ -1,49 +1,46 @@
-extern crate
bruceadams commented on issue #1: Proposed changes to action_loop
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-runtime-rust/pull/1#issuecomment-470714058
Ah, yup. Right there in the documentation
https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/guide/cargo-toml-vs-cargo-lock.html
> If you’re
bruceadams commented on a change in pull request #1: Proposed changes to
action_loop
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-runtime-rust/pull/1#discussion_r263588112
##
File path: rust1.32/src/action_loop/src/main.rs
##
@@ -1,49 +1,46 @@
-extern crate
rdiaz82 commented on a change in pull request #1: Proposed changes to
action_loop
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-runtime-rust/pull/1#discussion_r263540710
##
File path: rust1.32/src/action_loop/src/main.rs
##
@@ -1,49 +1,46 @@
-extern crate
I would prefer not going down this path (and would oppose it) as it took
great effort to validate the license pedigree and additional balk at using
anything packaged by a commercial provider.
Kind regards,
Matt
From: "Michele Sciabarra"
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
Date:
sciabarracom commented on issue #1: Proposed changes to action_loop
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-runtime-rust/pull/1#issuecomment-470587428
I am asking Roberto Diaz opinion as he is the original author of the Go
ActionLoop
Hello all,
I am working on the actionloop / java, and I wonder which Jvm or Docker Base
Image to use.
Current builds uses IBM J9 but I was confused by the class caching - it did not
work for me.
I had some success using Amazon Corretto.
Can be an acceptable choice? What are the differences?
bruceadams opened a new pull request #1: Proposed changes to action_loop
URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk-runtime-rust/pull/1
The key change here is using more of the power of Serde for parsing the
input.
There are several other, bigger picture things that should
Ha good point I didn’t know much about HasMap was only using jsonValue to
Marshall and unmarshall objects since that what I learn for initial tutorials
If the the value of the hashmap is jsonValue then it might ok, I just need to
see some examples of how to unmarshall and Marshall those
JsonValue is an enum that encompases any valid JSON value
https://docs.rs/json/0.2.1/json/enum.JsonValue.html.
So that signature is too generic IMO. The input should be a JSON object, so
the dictionary has keys of type String and values of type JsonValue.
For the result, perhaps using JsonResult
By the way all those links are also in the CWiki Meeting Notes for anyone
that wants to catched up async
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OPENWHISK/2019-03-06+OW+Tech+Interchange+-+Meeting+Notes
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:55 AM Rodric Rabbah wrote:
> Thanks Bertrand for the
You can use this INFRA ticket [1] as template to open a new issue to setup
rust Github repo
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-16770
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:55 AM Carlos Santana wrote:
> Hi Michele
>
>Thanks for all the work on helping on this I know you are very busy +1
>
>
Hi Michele
Thanks for all the work on helping on this I know you are very busy +1
I wanted to discuss the main method signature and open a github issue but
issues are not enable in the rust repo [1]
Did you open an INFRA ticket for infra people to configure and enable
Github Issues? Please
Thanks Bertrand for the suggestion. I've updated the doc and the links are
below for convenience as well.
PRs reviewed/discussed:
- Remove API key by default (“ready”)
https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk/pull/4284
- Hadoop/YARN support (merged) New contributor Sam Hjelmfelt
I agree with Bertrand and having a links to a mailing list thread and Github
issue helps the next time someone requests to the (P)PMC to review a proposal
to use the mark
- Carlos Santana
@csantanapr
> On Mar 7, 2019, at 5:15 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> On Wed, Mar 6,
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 7:17 PM Rodric Rabbah wrote:
> ...Amazing that you can capture all that, everytime!...
Indeed, thanks for this!
And still I have a small request: it would be great to include links
to the PRs and tickets being discussed ("speak in URLs") so that
people who do not attend
26 matches
Mail list logo
