Earlier  
Later
New Search
Posted Nick Remark
#openstack-sdks - 2018-12-13
17:04:23 cdent only if we do the git checkout bit internally, and only from a remote repo
17:05:52 edleafe If we put versions in the URI, we could have GET /v91b735fddedbeb9d1cc241dadc753ff2f3b86a4b/foo/bar
17:06:18 edleafe Users would love that!
17:06:42 cdent that looks suspiciously similar to user/project/tenant/whatever it was in URIs
17:06:46 cdent which was an equally bad idea
17:07:58 elmiko i'm gonna grab some lunch, catch you gents later o/
21:07:05 openstackgerrit Thomas Bechtold proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Drop self.conn from base.TestCase https://review.openstack.org/625115
23:08:13 kmalloc mordred: the SDK issue, are you seeing that on master or on pip isntalled?
23:08:20 kmalloc mordred: because i can't duplicate it on the current release
23:08:53 kmalloc mordred: the discovery bit
23:09:21 kmalloc mordred: i just tried with vexxhost:
23:09:57 kmalloc https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/EHIjvSgI/
23:10:12 kmalloc mordred: using pretty much your code:
23:10:28 kmalloc https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/7mR8Gonv/
23:10:49 kmalloc mordred: i omitted the auth request.
23:11:01 kmalloc maybe you're hitting the unversioned URL?
23:11:46 kmalloc nope, also not seeing that there.
23:12:40 Shrews kmalloc: you gotta enable the cache part
23:13:08 kmalloc Shrews: bah.
23:13:09 Shrews kmalloc: steps to reproduce are here: https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2004605
23:13:32 Shrews kmalloc: unless there is a different issue you are talking about :)
23:13:38 kmalloc no different thing
23:13:42 Shrews oh, sorry
23:13:45 kmalloc Shrews: i was looking at the duplicate discovery bit first
23:13:51 kmalloc Shrews: and i can't duplicate that.
23:13:59 kmalloc since that one might be something wrong in KSA.
23:14:02 Shrews kmalloc: i am no help there
23:14:15 kmalloc yeah, will need mordred to weigh in on duplication, it just isn't happening for me.
23:14:26 kmalloc on to the dogpile thing.
23:18:16 ianw kmalloc: yeah, i'm taking a look at it too ... wow it's hairy
23:19:26 ianw the change is https://gerrit.sqlalchemy.org/#/c/sqlalchemy/dogpile.cache/+/996/4/dogpile/cache/region.py
23:20:49 ianw i can sort of replicate it. i think in the unit tests, somehow it's getting eaten
23:20:56 ianw but if you put more failures in there, you see it
23:22:53 kmalloc Shrews: on another unrelated note
23:23:02 kmalloc https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/ylihsQes/battlestation
23:23:20 kmalloc Shrews: ^ hehehe 3x portrait mode monitors = win for code!
23:24:33 kmalloc ianw: yeah it's weird.
23:25:18 Shrews kmalloc: sick
23:33:30 kmalloc Shrews: i'm not able to duplicate that issue
23:33:36 kmalloc with dogpile 0.7.0 or 0.7.1
23:33:46 kmalloc i must have something broken in my clouds.yaml
23:34:22 kmalloc ooh wait.
23:35:34 kmalloc nope. hmmm.
23:37:12 kmalloc there we go
23:39:17 kmalloc hmm. this is why i usually use settr() instead of = for setting values, especially on python structures.
23:45:07 ianw so the original decorator wrapped the function, which is actually in this case a bound method
23:45:16 kmalloc right.
23:45:33 ianw now it uses "decorate"
23:45:33 kmalloc which means that __get__ is looking at .. i think something else here.
23:45:52 kmalloc yeah, i'm not super familiar with decoratte, that might eat things.
23:46:01 ianw i think the __get__ is right -- that's returning the bound method
23:46:11 ianw e.g. if we're calling self.list_users()
23:46:19 ianw it's the list_users() method of self
23:46:50 kmalloc right. but we're failing when it comes to doing the .set = set_
23:47:12 ianw then it's essentially calling "cache_on_arguments(self.list_users)"
23:47:13 kmalloc so, with decorate module we might be getting something else back from the __get__ that is resulting on the failure.
23:47:35 ianw well it hasn't got to that point yet
23:47:47 ianw it's assuming it can set "func.set = ... something"
23:47:50 kmalloc the traceback i see is
23:47:52 kmalloc https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/Dd2zuRog/
23:47:54 ianw which you can't do on a bound method
23:48:02 kmalloc right.
23:48:19 kmalloc hmm.. i wonder.
23:48:27 ianw ok, we're talking about the same traceback at least :)
23:49:09 ianw splitting it up helps i think
23:49:11 ianw http://paste.openstack.org/
23:49:23 kmalloc yeah
23:50:04 kmalloc i think i see what is going on
23:50:14 ianw in the old decorator, it would use @wraps(fn) on the incoming user function
23:50:25 kmalloc yes
23:50:48 kmalloc dogpile makes the broad assumption it is doing the wrapping
23:51:03 kmalloc not getting magic instantiated things
23:51:06 kmalloc bound methods.
23:51:17 ianw yes ... probably a fair assumption :)
23:51:30 kmalloc we're probably doing it wrong.
23:52:37 ianw sorry i've got to step out for about 30 minutes for a meeting. i'll be back
23:52:41 kmalloc yeah np.
23:54:54 kmalloc ianw: the solutions are pretty straightforward (cc Shrews, mordred): 1) dogpile reverts, 2) we stop wrapping on-demand, and we lean on something similar to a "should_cache_fn", or always wrap and just lean on the null backend by default, 3) same as 2, but we use should_cache_fn to control if caching is enabled.
23:55:19 kmalloc i think dogpile is probably making the sane assumption it should be allowed to control wrapping.
23:56:11 kmalloc i think we should just always wrap, and let dogpile do that, instead of wrap the bound method.
#openstack-sdks - 2018-12-14
00:06:09 kmalloc Shrews: out of curiosity, why do we have our own ... on-demand cache-on-arguments that does it independantly of import time? this seems odd... is it just to override the self-being-needed in the .invalidate?
00:31:58 ianw https://review.openstack.org/#/c/171456/ is where it seems to have come in
03:15:44 ianw I have updated https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/story/2004605 and have a small test-case in an upstream issue https://github.com/sqlalchemy/dogpile.cache/issues/140
03:22:15 kmalloc weird...
03:22:24 kmalloc this is just odd
03:25:25 kmalloc ianw: i can't log into github atm, or i'd comment on your issue
03:25:39 kmalloc ianw: i think dogpile is doing the sane thing and openstacksdk is doing something very weird.
03:26:31 kmalloc ianw: i know it's a behavior change but i wonder why we didn't just raise up the invalidate instead of adding another layer of wrapping
03:29:09 ianw kmalloc: at this point i dunno, i'm going a bit cross-eyed from staring at it :) gonna switch gears to look at the pin, because we kind of need that to unblock other stuff
03:29:39 ianw we have a circular dependency in fixing nodepool jobs
03:34:49 openstackgerrit Ian Wienand proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Avoid dogpile.cache 0.7.0 https://review.openstack.org/624485
03:37:45 openstackgerrit Ian Wienand proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Avoid dogpile.cache 0.7.0 https://review.openstack.org/624485
03:57:09 kmalloc ianw: ++
03:57:21 kmalloc ianw: i'll poke at mordred and Shrews i'm sure they know
12:53:21 openstackgerrit melissaml proposed openstack/openstacksdk master: Change openstack-dev to openstack-discuss https://review.openstack.org/625247
13:52:17 Shrews kmalloc: i think the intent was to have an invalidate function (i don't know the history of dogpile.cache here, but latest code seems to always have an invalidate func) and to eventually support per-resource caches
13:53:09 Shrews kmalloc: i'm not familiar enough with dogpile to know how to properly get rid of our custom decorator and have things still work
13:57:05 Shrews kmalloc: i tried https://review.openstack.org/624767 but I can't remember what on earth i saw wrong with that to cause me to abandon it. i think it was not being able to support per-resource caches
13:57:22 Shrews which we don't appear to be doing anyway
13:57:59 Shrews my head was so confused trying to unravel this :/

Earlier   Later