Re: Squelching Leadership messages

John A Meinel writes: > Note that we should still report leadership changes at INFO level, which > should allow you to > debug easy things without changing the log level, as those changes should > happen very > rarely. +1, thanks for this! -- Katherine --

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

Mark Shuttleworth writes: > We are already aligning things like terms and authentication so that > charms and snaps can be delivered together, though, so perhaps all > thats required is the ability to give the charm some say in update > control of snaps. Interesting, thanks,

Re: A (Very) Minimal Charm

Tim Penhey writes: > Make sure you also run on LXD with a decent delay to the APT archive. Open question: is there any reason we shouldn't expect charm authors to take a hard-right towards charms with snaps embedded as resources? I know one of our long-standing

Re: Dependencies added for new jsonschema support

Nate Finch writes: > In support of my PR that adds an interactive mode for add-cloud, we needed to > add > jsonschema for the cloud configurations that can be inspected at runtime to > generate the > interactive queries. Thanks for the great write-up, Nate. I've

Re: Long tests

Nate Finch writes: Thanks for highlighting these, Nate! > Here's some especially bad low hanging fruit (note these are the times > for single tests, not full suites): If anyone is so inclined, I have modified the deploy command so that it is unit testable, and

Re: juju/retry take 2 - looping

Tim Penhey writes: > Forcing continue/break does not make it like all boring imperative > loops. I would like to understand this better. Here's why I think they're boring: - They're Go keywords. - They're present in many other languages and are well understood. - I

Re: juju/retry take 2 - looping

Tim Penhey writes: > The rationale behind that is to make the the library handle the 80% > case easily. The main reason of passing the error into Next is so you > don't have to do the check and explicit break within the loop. I will argue here that this goes against a

Re: Github Reviews vs Reviewboard

roger peppe writes: > I think that review history is crucial for context on historic > code decisions I wonder if we could hack a script to save the reviews as git notes, e.g. https://github.com/google/git-appraise With git's ability to rewrite history, I bet this

Re: juju/retry take 2 - looping

John Meinel writes: > As commented on the pull request, passing 'err' into Next() initially feels > weird, but > it allows a big improvement to whether the loop exited because we ran out of > retries, or it exited because the request succeeded. (loop.Error() > tells us

Re: Big memory usage improvements

Menno Smits writes: > Christian (babbageclunk) has been busy fixing various memory leaks in the Juju > controllers and has made some significant improvements. Awesome, good work, Christian! Not to detract from this fantastic news, but it's still worrisome that an

Re: Reviews on Github

> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:44 PM Katherine Cox-Buday > <katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com> wrote: > > I see quite a few PRs that are being reviewed in GitHub and not > ReviewBoard. I really don't care where we do them, but can we > please pick a direction

Re: Reviews on Github

I see quite a few PRs that are being reviewed in GitHub and not ReviewBoard. I really don't care where we do them, but can we please pick a direction and move forward? And until then, can we stick to our previous decision and use RB? With people using both it's much more difficult to tell

Re: Let's talk retries

roger peppe writes: > There's a fourth way that you haven't mentioned, which fits somewhere > in between 1 and 2 I think (it was the first explicit general retry > code in Juju AFAIK), which is utils.Attempt. > > I'd suggest that the way it's used matches the pattern

Re: Let's talk retries

Andrew's queue is certainly nice, but I agree with the points Roger is raising: 1. Go's idiom for coordinating concurrent operations are goroutines and channels. 2. Sticking to these idioms makes it much easier to compose parts into a whole (if only because the language strongly bends code that

Let's talk retries

Hey All, We currently have 3 ways we're performing retries in Juju: 1. Archaic, custom, intra-package retry code. 2. github.com/juju/utils::{Countdown,BackoffTimer} 3. github.com/juju/retry (current best practice) I have just touched some code which fits #1, and when I was attempting to

Re: Any mentor for adding a new provider available?

Hey Patrik, Have a look at this[1] wiki page and see if it doesn't provide what you need. We'll make every effort to support you during development it, and we'll want to make sure that Wiki page is updated to fill in any gaps you might find. You might also find the document on contributing[2]

Re: Schema for Juju RPC messages

Mark Shuttleworth <m...@ubuntu.com> writes: > On 27/07/16 19:43, Reed O'Brien wrote: > > +1 > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Katherine Cox-Buday > <katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com> wrote: > > >

Re: Schema for Juju RPC messages

I am a huge fan of publishing schema's and then generating SDKs and documentation websites off of them. It brings your API closer to language agnostic, removes the burden on us having to hand-craft both our API client and our documentation site, and makes validation implicit. I'm not up on

Re: Small script to connect to Juju's mongo in LXD

John > =:-> > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Katherine Cox-Buday > <katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com> wrote: > > I frequently need to connect to Juju's Mongo instance to poke > around and see if something I've done is having the desired > effect. Ba

Small script to connect to Juju's mongo in LXD

I frequently need to connect to Juju's Mongo instance to poke around and see if something I've done is having the desired effect. Back when we were using LXC, I had a script that would pull the password from agent.conf and open a shell. When we switched to LXD my script broke, and I never

Re: grabbing resources when deploying via api Application.Deploy

So just to follow up on our conversation in IRC: - You do need to upload resource metadata prior to deploying a charm. You can do so via the "resources" facade, version 1. Call "AddPendingResources". - This will give you a list of IDs back; associate these in a map of resource-name -> id, and

Re: Cleansing Mongo data

ot? > > cheers, > rog. > > On 23 June 2016 at 21:09, Katherine Cox-Buday > <katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com> wrote: >> Hey all, >> >> William gave me a good review and it came up that I wasn't cleansing >> some of >> the data being placed in

Re: Cleansing Mongo data

mongo? Even when the import isn't > aliased, the intent of "mongo.EscapeKeys(...)" is clearer than > "utils.EscapeKeys(...)". > > - Menno > > On 24 June 2016 at 08:09, Katherine Cox-Buday > <katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com> wrote: > > Hey all, >

Cleansing Mongo data

Hey all, William gave me a good review and it came up that I wasn't cleansing some of the data being placed in Mongo. I wasn't aware this had to be done, and after talking to a few other folks it became apparent that maybe not many people know we should be doing this. At any rate, William also

Re: Regarding Synnefo environment provider for Juju

Hey Thodoris, Congratulations on beginning your provider! :) Do you have your code visible anywhere? It would help with diagnosing any issues. - Katherine Thodoris Sotiropoulos writes: > Hi all, > > You may remember previous e-mails sent by my partner Stavros >

Re: The mean time for a CI run has risen to 33 minutes

Not sure if this is the isolation problem you're speaking of, but if so, it's been fixed. https://launchpad.net/bugs/1564511 Martin Packman writes: > On 16/05/2016, David Cheney wrote: >> This got significantly worse in the last 6

Re: adding unit tests that take a long time

On 04/27/2016 09:51 PM, Nate Finch wrote: > So, this is exactly why I didn't want to mention the nature of the > test, because we'd get sidetracked. I'll make another thread to talk > about that specific test. > > I do still want to talk about what we can do for unit tests that take > a long time.

Re: adding unit tests that take a long time

On 04/27/2016 09:51 PM, Nate Finch wrote: > So, this is exactly why I didn't want to mention the nature of the > test, because we'd get sidetracked. I'll make another thread to talk > about that specific test. > > I do still want to talk about what we can do for unit tests that take > a long time.

Re: adding unit tests that take a long time

That is an awesome idea! +1 On 04/27/2016 05:51 PM, Andrew Wilkins wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 1:44 AM Nate Finch > wrote: > > I was actually trying to avoid talking about the test itself to > keep things shorter ;) > >

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

ather our energies > in the short term are directed at fixing stakeholder bugs than fixing > intermittent failures that prevent us from releasing because we are no > longer retrying tests. > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Katherine Cox-Buday > <katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

tion to fix this stuff... > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:03 AM Katherine Cox-Buday > <katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com > <mailto:katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com>> wrote: > > Just wanted to say thank you 100x to all involved! > > On 0

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

Just wanted to say thank you 100x to all involved! On 03/24/2016 01:03 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote: > Hi, > > As of a few minutes ago, there is now a golang-1.6 package in > trusty-proposed: > https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/trusty/+source/golang-1.6 (thanks for the > review and copy, Steve). > >

Re: Go 1.6 is now in trusty-proposed

Generally +1 on this, but I'm also intrigued by Martin's statistic... do we currently weight test failures by how likely they are to fail (i.e. how likely they are flaky)? That seems like it would be a great metric to use to decide which to fix first. On 03/28/2016 01:29 AM, David Cheney wrote: >

Re: Units & resources: are units homogeneous?

bundles? Sorry if I'm over-simplifying. - Katherine On 02/16/2016 12:35 PM, Adam Collard wrote: Hi Katherine, On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 at 18:20 Katherine Cox-Buday <katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com <mailto:katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com>> wrote: The team is looking closely at

Re: Introducing, juju resources!

Hey Gabbey! On 02/12/2016 03:57 PM, Gabriel Samfira wrote: Is there a limit on the filesize I can upload? Not to my knowledge; they are streamed to the controller. What happens if multiple users try to upload the same file (does it get stored twice, or does juju just increment a reference

Copyright headers for auto-generated files?

Nate ran into an interesting problem yesterday. If we begin to use go generate directives to auto-generate code, do we care that this code doesn't have a Copyright header? We check the generated file into source control, but as the file is meant to be regenerated in the event of a change, we

Comprehensive reviews & when to do them?

Hey All, I think we have a mis-alignment in how we currently do reviews and feature branches. We've switched over to feature-branches which is great and has allowed Moonstone to land "good enough" code into our feature branch to support a bi-weekly demo and solicit feedback. At the same

New feature in 1.25.0: Payload Management!

Hey All, Moonstone have been working hard this cycle on delivering a way to manage payloads from within a Juju Charm, and providing a nice way to expose information about the payloads through the Juju client. We got off course for a bit there, but with the help of Mark and some others, we're

Re: link to review request in launchpad

Seriously speaking -- and let me preface this by saying this is probably very low on the priority list -- how hard would it be to take advantage of Launchpad's new Git support to import branches from Github so that we could tag bugs to branches/commits? Having never used any of these features, I

Reminder: on June 15th, Go 1.4 will stop compiling things from code.google.com.

I think there was an effort to remove this from our code, but I thought I'd send out a reminder to check and for personal projects. May the source be with you... - Katherine -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at:

Janus: a fake rest api server

https://github.com/jijeshmohan/janus Disclaimer: I haven't looked at this too closely. Came across this the morning. If we want to maintain test-doubles, this looks like a nice, declarative, way to specify mock responses from a local server. - Katherine -- Juju-dev mailing list

Re: Watch out for plural vs. singular

I ran into a similar type of issue recently. I discussed very briefly with John M. and William, and I think a good thing to do would be to hide the generic RegisterResource method, and only expose methods which take the interface types. This would convert these types of issues from runtime to

Re: commands

Looks great, Nick! Cheers for the good work, and I love that it's automatically synchronized! This should drive quality up in both places! On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Nick Veitch nick.vei...@canonical.com wrote: Hello, I have just finished updating the all-new exciting and more

Re: New Package for Feature Tests

. On 09/01/15 12:03, Katherine Cox-Buday wrote: Hey everyone, I just landed a PR which introduces a new package for Juju which is intended to host long-running end-to-end feature tests. You can have a look here: github.com/juju/juju/blob/master/featuretests/doc.go A little context as I

New Package for Feature Tests

Hey everyone, I just landed a PR which introduces a new package for Juju which is intended to host long-running end-to-end feature tests. You can have a look here: github.com/juju/juju/blob/master/featuretests/doc.go A little context as I understand it: 1. This is the direct result of the

Things which may be of interest in Go v1.4

Hey All, I just got done reading through the Go v1.4 release-notes[1], and these are some high-level thoughts about what pieces may be of interest to Juju development. This is certainly not comprehensive, but I thought you all might be interested. Happy release day :) - *go generate

Re: Things which may be of interest in Go v1.4

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Eric Snow eric.s...@canonical.com wrote: Cool. So generics via macros? Well, I intentionally didn't specify generics. Yes, that is a use-case. But from what I gather, go generate is intended to be used once when first writing code, not every time you compile.

Re: Things which may be of interest in Go v1.4

surfaced in the community with go generate. Generating code is very useful and powerful, but comes with a price (debugging, readability, etc). I'd rather NOT generate code whenever possible. On Thu Dec 11 2014 at 2:21:20 PM Katherine Cox-Buday katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com

Re: Proposal: feature flag implementation for Juju

I like the idea. Thinking out loud: do we want to combine this with the wrench so that we have 1 consistent way to fiddle with Juju behavior? On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Tim Penhey tim.pen...@canonical.com wrote: Hi all, There are often times when we want to hook up features for testing

Re: Is ReviewBoard a good thing?

I don't yet have a strong opinion either way. I do think that since we invested so much time in getting Review Board set up, we should use it for a bit longer to see if these are growing pains. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Gabriel Samfira gsamf...@cloudbasesolutions.com wrote: Just a

Re: ReviewBoard is now the official review tool for juju

Let me preface this by saying I like the Reviewboard style of reviewing changes. It's somewhat concerning to me that our reviews are now disconnected from what will actually be landed into trunk. In Github, you were reviewing the actual diff which would be landed. In reviewboard, we're now

Commented-out tests?

Hey all, I ran into some commented out tests while making a change: https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/630/files#r16874739 I deleted them since keeping things around that we might need later is the job of source control, not comments ;) Ian just wanted me to check just to make sure this was OK.

Re: The tests now run godeps

I have toyed with the idea of adding a git hook that runs godeps whenever I switch branches. I haven't gotten around to trying it out, but would that possibly be another helpful thing for developers to do? On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 5:14 AM, roger peppe roger.pe...@canonical.com wrote: On 21

LXC OS Updates

Hey all! Ian and I were discussing lp:1350493 https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1350493 (1.20.x local provider not running apt-get update) and thought it might be good to raise a few ideas here. It is my understanding that currently we do LXC cloning in the interest of saving time -- the

Parameter validation Juju

Hey all, What is the general consensus on parameter validation in Juju? As a general practice, I always like to see code that validates parameters passed into methods so that it fails fast, and gives future developers a contract to work off of. Just yesterday I experienced a nil-reference panic

Re: Enhancing our IRC bot?

details and will send some notes soon. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Katherine Cox-Buday katherine.cox-bu...@canonical.com wrote: Hey all, I thought my first post to the list would be something relatively innocuous :) Have we ever considered enhancing our IRC bot to report CI status