| [00:06] <jimbaker> niemeyer, any preferences in terms of python tools for writing html? cheetah? | |
| [00:09] <niemeyer> jimbaker: I would prefer something very simple | |
| [00:09] <jimbaker> niemeyer, exactly. so please tell me what you prefer, and i will use it :) | |
| [00:09] <niemeyer> jimbaker: If possible a single Python file we can embed in the project itself | |
| [00:10] <niemeyer> jimbaker: Since our needs are pretty trivial.. just iterating over a list building a table with OK/FAILED + links | |
| [00:11] <niemeyer> jimbaker: Do you know anything like that? | |
| [00:12] <niemeyer> I'll get some food, biab | |
| [00:12] <jimbaker> niemeyer, i don't know of an ultra simplistic tool. typically when it's framed like that, it tends to be done with just direct writes | |
| [00:16] <SpamapS> OK/FAILED links? isn't that what jenkins does? | |
| [00:16] <jimbaker> niemeyer, but in my experience that rarely works well. best to use a tool chain that ensures compliant output. i haven't used cheetah, but i know it's used by other people on the ubuntu server team | |
| [00:16] <jimbaker> SpamapS, correct, we are re-implementing what jenkins does | |
| [00:16] <jimbaker> SpamapS, regardless this is the task i have | |
| [00:16] <SpamapS> eh? | |
| [00:17] <jimbaker> for our functional testing | |
| [00:19] <SpamapS> Right, subunit doesn't have something ? | |
| [00:19] <SpamapS> I mean, jenkins is like, the industry standard. | |
| [00:19] <SpamapS> And we have a.. really kick ass jenkins formula. :) | |
| [00:19] <jimbaker> SpamapS, agreed that jenkins is the industry standard | |
| [00:20] <SpamapS> https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/NUnit+Plugin | |
| [00:20] <SpamapS> I was kind of hoping we'd get to a point where we were graphing all that lovely test coverage | |
| [00:21] <jimbaker> SpamapS, yes, output to standard nunitxml is pretty trivial. subunit supports this, through subunit2junitxml. however, the functional testing will not be done w/ trial | |
| [00:22] <SpamapS> aww snap | |
| [00:22] <jimbaker> SpamapS, this is actually a good thing. trial is pretty wretched for long running functional tests | |
| [00:22] <jimbaker> SpamapS, niemeyer has written a new test runner that will execute shell scripts (this is the churn we discussed earlier on this channel) | |
| [00:23] <SpamapS> Awright. Well, I don't really see us matching jenkins for frontend capabilities.. probably worth your time to produce nunint/junit xml and then just chug through it on jenkins. | |
| [00:23] <jimbaker> SpamapS, however, it might make sense to output junitxml instead. perhaps that could be considered at a later time. | |
| [00:23] <SpamapS> A new test runner that runs shell scripts? | |
| [00:23] <SpamapS> Thats also what jenkins does. :) | |
| [00:24] <SpamapS> Tho its not much of a tool for developers to run in an iterative sense.. | |
| [00:24] <SpamapS> I didn't think the functional tests would be somethign you'd do in that manner. | |
| [00:24] <SpamapS> Figured you'd just set jenkins jobs up to point at in progress branches and trunk and run tests on commit | |
| [00:25] <jimbaker> SpamapS, that makes a lot of sense to do. again the test runner could readily output junitxml | |
| [00:26] <jimbaker> SpamapS, the more important thing is that we want functional tests directly exercising ensemble commands | |
| [00:27] <SpamapS> Hey, me too. :) | |
| [00:27] <SpamapS> On all supported configurations | |
| [00:28] <SpamapS> (that last bit is integration testing.. but .. details.. ;) | |
| [00:28] <jimbaker> SpamapS, cool. so consider this as an intermediate step | |
| [00:28] <jimbaker> trust me, it will be very easy to have this integrated into jenkins in some subsequent step | |
| [00:29] <SpamapS> Alright, well yeah, I'd think the time spent outputting HTML would be better spent outputting junitxml that jenkins can read and digest. | |
| [00:29] <SpamapS> On the tests.. | |
| [00:29] <SpamapS> I wrote a few silly bash scripts that deploy/relate/query the formulas.. and james page came up with a cool way to have formulas embed tests ... | |
| [00:29] <SpamapS> we should have a pow-wow once you've got the test runner doing some stuff. | |
| [00:32] <jimbaker> SpamapS, sounds like a plan. i definitely want to hear more about james' ideas | |
| [00:34] <jimbaker> SpamapS, we could readily add your bash scripts | |
| [00:35] <SpamapS> jimbaker: I need to distill them down to smaller nuggets that can be encapsulated and run wherever.. one challenge is setting up the env w/ an environments.yaml and ssh key and such | |
| [00:36] <jimbaker> SpamapS, yeah, that's a much more interesting problem. one thing that we can do w/ building out environments.yamls is do things like running several envs in parallel | |
| [00:37] <jimbaker> SpamapS, i do have a variant of sshclient that ignores possible man-in-the-middle, but it would be much better if we managed this properly | |
| [00:39] <jimbaker> SpamapS, another thing i did play with was making sshclient much more robust for extremely long waits. at the very least, we might want to have something like a wait-for-ensemble ENVIRONMENT which successively looks at the milestones in an env coming up | |
| [00:40] <jimbaker> (it might also be a useful ensemble subcommand in the future, don't know) | |
| [00:43] <SpamapS> Not sure what you mean | |
| [00:43] <SpamapS> I wrote a wait4state perl script that just runs status | |
| [00:43] <niemeyer> jimbaker: This looks nice: https://github.com/defunkt/pystache | |
| [00:45] <SpamapS> but /win 10 | |
| [00:45] <SpamapS> doh | |
| [00:45] <jimbaker> niemeyer, looks good to me, thanks! | |
| [00:46] <jimbaker> SpamapS, but /win... ? | |
| [00:46] <SpamapS> irssi | |
| [00:46] <SpamapS> hey quick python question | |
| [00:46] <SpamapS> do lists keep an internal length? | |
| [00:46] <niemeyer> jimbaker: It's an incarnation of this: http://mustache.github.com/ | |
| [00:47] <SpamapS> I'm profiling something that does len(giant_list) a lit and it seems to me that removing these calls makes it a lot faster (and just keeping track of the length in a different variable) | |
| [00:47] <niemeyer> SpamapS: They do | |
| [00:47] <niemeyer> SpamapS: Are you doing tons of those calls? | |
| [00:47] <SpamapS> yes | |
| [00:48] <niemeyer> SpamapS: function calls in Python are expensive in general.. you may just be seeing that cost | |
| [00:48] <jimbaker> niemeyer, yeah, mustache is a fine approach | |
| [00:48] <SpamapS> 5 for every line of a 500,000 line file.... | |
| [00:48] <SpamapS> So I'm not crazy.. its not a massive expense per call.. but it adds up | |
| [00:48] <jimbaker> SpamapS, doesn't seem to be so much even for cpython | |
| [00:48] <niemeyer> SpamapS: Yeah, definitely.. you'd notice 2.5M Python function calls for sure | |
| [00:49] <SpamapS> http://paste.ubuntu.com/680217/ | |
| [00:49] <jimbaker> so there, we have two contrasting viewpoints | |
| [00:49] <SpamapS> now to find out where the other 8.8s are spent. :-P | |
| [00:50] <niemeyer> jimbaker: You mean you don't find them expensive? | |
| [00:51] <jimbaker> niemeyer, i just don't think it's that bad if it's just 2.5M | |
| [00:52] <niemeyer> jimbaker: | |
| [00:52] <jimbaker> niemeyer, functional call overhead in cpython is obviously quite expensive, for a variety of reasons | |
| [00:52] <niemeyer> def f(): pass | |
| [00:52] <niemeyer> start = time() | |
| [00:52] <niemeyer> for i in range(2500000): f() | |
| [00:52] <niemeyer> print time()-start | |
| [00:52] <niemeyer> jimbaker: This takes 1 second in my machine | |
| [00:52] <niemeyer> jimbaker: Doing absolutely nothing | |
| [00:52] <niemeyer> jimbaker: There's more than a function call there, but gives an idea | |
| [00:52] <jimbaker> niemeyer, i'm sure that's the case :) | |
| [00:53] <niemeyer> jimbaker: That's what I meant by "you'd notice" | |
| [00:53] <jimbaker> it's just that 0.5s as the case w/ SpamapS's perf or 1s for your case is still a relatively small number compared to what i have seen in the past, that's all ;) | |
| [00:54] <jimbaker> but if run in a command, or in the direct path for rendering a page, sure, it's extremely noticeable | |
| [00:54] <SpamapS> That, and things like .append, .sort, etc, are the only function calls.. | |
| [00:54] <SpamapS> this script lags the same algorithm in perl by about 15% | |
| [00:54] <SpamapS> I was wrong btw, it doesn't do 5 for every line | |
| [00:54] <SpamapS> just 1 len for every line | |
| [00:55] <SpamapS> but yeah, 500,000 is 0.504s | |
| [00:55] <jimbaker> SpamapS, did you try it w/ pypy? that would be an interesting exercise | |
| [00:55] <SpamapS> jimbaker: I wanted to but didn't know how to even get pypy ;) | |
| [00:55] <jimbaker> functional call overhead w/ pypy is extremely reduced | |
| [00:55] <niemeyer> Yeah, should kick ass | |
| [00:56] <SpamapS> lol.. lucid, karmic, and jaunty.. :-P | |
| [00:56] <jimbaker> http://pypy.org/download.html - just give it a try, i don't know where they are on latency | |
| [00:56] <niemeyer> Takes 16ms in Go.. | |
| [00:56] <niemeyer> The 2.5 | |
| [00:57] <jimbaker> niemeyer, that might be close to pypy for the empty case, factoring out startup. which may or may not be applicable, given the domain | |
| [00:58] <jimbaker> (i too should give it a try ;) ) | |
| [00:58] <niemeyer> Maybe.. haven't tried that kind of thing there yet.. would be curious, though | |
| [00:58] <niemeyer> Given their latest work it must be pretty amazing | |
| [01:01] <jimbaker> bbl | |
| [01:01] <SpamapS> pretty hard to find pypy binaries.. :-P | |
| [01:54] <_mup_> Bug #838568 was filed: push-review must be tested again <Ensemble:In Progress by niemeyer> < https://launchpad.net/bugs/838568 > | |
| === daker_ is now known as daker | |
| [13:57] <niemeyer> Alow! | |
| [14:16] <hazmat> jimbaker`, jinja2 is pretty nice re templating engines | |
| [14:24] <_mup_> ensemble/local-provider r353 committed by [email protected] | |
| [14:24] <_mup_> remove utility wait_for_node, just make the nesc. method public on zookeeperconnect, allow get open port to take a host option. | |
| [15:00] <jimbaker`> hazmat, jinja2 is fine. but let's go with mustache | |
| [15:01] <hazmat> jimbaker`, wasn't clear that mustache has any advantage over say.. string.Template | |
| [15:05] <hazmat> er.. actually string formatters | |
| [15:06] <hazmat> mustache looks fine though | |
| [15:08] <jimbaker`> hazmat, mustache does one very important thing, which is that it performs html encoding | |
| [15:09] <jimbaker`> when compared to string.Template. obviously the mustache {{}} itself is familiar in both templating systems | |
| [15:10] <niemeyer> jimbaker`: and loops, I guess | |
| [15:53] <niemeyer> Lunch time.. biab! | |
| [16:14] <SpamapS> niemeyer: can we get push-review from a PPA or something? | |
| [16:14] <SpamapS> niemeyer: I *really* like the automation it promises. :) | |
| [16:21] <_mup_> Bug #839695 was filed: ensemble.formula.tests.test_bundle.BundleTest.test_executable_extraction fails on empty home dir <Ensemble:New> < https://launchpad.net/bugs/839695 > | |
| [16:27] <SpamapS> hazmat: re the bug linked above.. | |
| [16:28] <SpamapS> hazmat: its checking for 493 as the stat.. but.. in my bzr co of ensemble, its 509 .. I believe this is because umask has changed on ubuntu.. | |
| [16:28] <SpamapS> but I could be wrong | |
| [16:29] <SpamapS> indeed.. its just a matter of how you checked out the branch | |
| [16:33] <SpamapS> I think the appropriate check is that the stat *matches* the sample.. not that it is exactly 509.. basically we want to make sure exec was preserved | |
| [16:41] <hazmat> SpamapS, sounds good | |
| [16:45] <SpamapS> hazmat: http://pastebin.com/DaaJ1Mp0 | |
| [16:46] <SpamapS> that is currently building in my PPA.. if it passes all tests, I'll change debian/rules to fail the build on test fail and submit a FFe for revision 336 to upload to Ubuntu. | |
| [16:47] <SpamapS> (with the 3 patches I've submitted for review applied.. ;) | |
| [16:55] <niemeyer> SpamapS: Absolutely! Working on that already.. should be apt-gettable today | |
| [18:16] <jcastro> hey m_3 | |
| [18:16] <jcastro> http://blog.carbonfive.com/2011/09/01/deploying-node-js-on-amazon-ec2/ | |
| [18:17] <_mup_> Bug #839794 was filed: Final test for the tool! <Ensemble:In Progress by niemeyer> < https://launchpad.net/bugs/839794 > | |
| [18:17] <jcastro> would now be a good time to ask how the node standalone formula is coming along? | |
| [18:45] <jimbaker`> jcastro, i like how that blog post begins: "After nearly a month of beating my head against the wall that is hosted node.js stacks — with their fake beta invites and non-existent support..." | |
| [18:46] <m_3> jcastro: hey | |
| [18:47] <m_3> jcastro: yeah, the node formula was part of a talk I gave on IRC a few weeks ago | |
| [18:47] <m_3> jcastro: I'll brush it off, promote it to principia, and blog about it | |
| [18:47] <jcastro> m_3: do you have time to post a response to the guy? | |
| [18:47] <jcastro> it reads to me like he needs ensemble hard core | |
| [18:49] <m_3> jcastro: yeah, I'll do it during a boring talk this afternoon | |
| [18:49] <jcastro> oh sorry, forgot you were travelling | |
| [18:50] <m_3> jcastro: conf wraps up today, so I'll be able to put time on it over the weekend | |
| === niemeyer_ is now known as niemeyer | |
| === daker is now known as daker_ | |
| [19:51] <negronjl> jcastro: ping | |
| [19:55] <jcastro> negronjl: pong | |
| [19:56] <negronjl> jcastro: in a meeting right now.. I'll ping you later | |
| [19:56] * jcastro nods | |
| [19:56] <_mup_> ensemble/local-unit-deploy r354 committed by [email protected] | |
| [19:56] <_mup_> factor out unit environment retrieval into separate method. | |
| [20:14] <_mup_> ensemble/local-unit-deploy r355 committed by [email protected] | |
| [20:14] <_mup_> user/environment qualified lxc container name, tweak upstart job | |
| [20:28] <_mup_> ensemble/local-unit-deploy r356 committed by [email protected] | |
| [20:28] <_mup_> additional test for qualified container name | |
| [21:01] <hazmat> SpamapS, does upstart do env expansion on the exec stanza? | |
| [21:11] <SpamapS> hazmat: yes | |
| [21:24] <niemeyer> Okay.. lpad is out, lbox is out.. back to reviews and porting formulas | |
| [21:25] <niemeyer> But I'll step out for now.. may do some extra time tomorrow for helping on the queue | |
| [21:26] * niemeyer bbl | |
| [21:33] <_mup_> ensemble/local-unit-deploy r357 committed by [email protected] | |
| [21:33] <_mup_> have upstart respawn and run the container in the foreground, doc strings for all container deployment methods. | |
| [21:36] * robbiew needs a drink | |
| [21:44] <hazmat> excellent idea | |
| [21:49] <SpamapS> hazmat: upstart for containers, but not for the agents?! | |
| [21:51] <hazmat> SpamapS, for the agent | |
| [21:51] <hazmat> unit agent only | |
| [21:51] <hazmat> inside a container | |
| [21:52] <hazmat> its not truly restartable.. probably shouldnt' be respawn auto | |
| [21:52] * hazmat returns with a bloody mary | |
| [21:53] <hazmat> SpamapS, one nice fallout of the local dev stuff, it should be pretty easy to use this for arm servers, with an external zk address. | |
| [21:53] <SpamapS> task tsk.. we need our idempotency. :) | |
| [21:53] <SpamapS> :) | |
| [21:53] * hazmat reruns tests to ascertain potency | |
| [21:56] <SpamapS> oh I thought you were saying that its not re-startable because of some problem with idempotency | |
| [22:09] <hazmat> SpamapS, the real issue is loss of events while the agent was down, in practice its probably not an issue, except when it is | |
| [22:10] <SpamapS> err.. events? | |
| [22:10] <hazmat> no good reason not to go ahead with it i suppose | |
| [22:10] <SpamapS> I thought we just watched to see what the state was | |
| [22:10] <SpamapS> if we miss 4 changes, who cares, just make the new state true. | |
| [22:10] <hazmat> SpamapS, if the agent is down, watches won't be delivered | |
| [22:11] <hazmat> and extant watches need to be restablished as new watches potentially | |
| [22:11] <SpamapS> if we need that, we need a queue, not a data store | |
| [22:11] <SpamapS> But I see what you're saying | |
| [22:12] <hazmat> we're delivering a queue/event interface to formulas, but disconnections mean establishing a delta between state on reconnect to inform the formula of the events between the watch restablishment | |
| [22:12] <SpamapS> what we need is to keep track of what state the agent thinks it is in, so when it comes back up it can do the appropriate transitions. | |
| [22:12] <SpamapS> Thats not a queue.. thats a watched data store. | |
| [22:12] <hazmat> yup | |
| [22:12] <SpamapS> Convenient, yes, but not a queue. :) | |
| [22:12] <hazmat> its really a sync between a remote and local data store | |
| [22:12] <hazmat> to compute the delta | |
| [22:13] <SpamapS> I see the problem.. very interesting | |
| [22:13] <hazmat> in truth its probably a very rare issue in practice for a respawn | |
| [22:13] <hazmat> for a net split its more significant | |
| [22:13] <hazmat> or any long running outage | |
| [22:13] <SpamapS> yeah, so at the moment, ensemble is not partition tolerant. ;) | |
| [22:16] * SpamapS disappears | |
| [22:16] <hazmat> SpamapS, have a good weekend | |
| [22:55] <jimbaker`> how do i push a branch that's a branch of lp:~ensemble/ensemble/ftests ? i tried this, but it's not right: bzr push --stacked-on lp:~ensemble/ensemble/ftests --remember lp:~jimbaker/ensemble/ftests/generate-html | |
| [23:02] <jimbaker`> niemeyer, ^^^ ? | |
| [23:09] <_mup_> ensemble/local-unit-deploy r358 committed by [email protected] | |
| [23:09] <_mup_> use ensemble home instead of units directory for all unit deployments | |
| [23:09] <hazmat> jimbaker`, i think you just push to ~jimbaker/ensemble/generate-html | |
| [23:10] <hazmat> its on the merge side you pick the series branch afaik | |
| [23:10] * hazmat checks | |
| [23:10] <jimbaker`> hazmat, ok, i was wondering why it was wanting to use the wrong series | |
| [23:10] <hazmat> yup | |
| [23:11] <hazmat> jimbaker`, so on merge the target branch is ensemble/ftests | |
| [23:11] <hazmat> there all branches of the same project for the user project namespace | |
| [23:11] <hazmat> s/their | |
| [23:15] <_mup_> Bug #839969 was filed: Checkout Ensemble branch, run bash ftests, and generate summary in HTML <Ensemble:In Progress by jimbaker> < https://launchpad.net/bugs/839969 > | |
| [23:18] <hazmat> jimbaker`, is the ftest stuff using jenkins for test running? | |
| [23:18] <jimbaker`> hazmat, no | |
| [23:18] <hazmat> just wondering if we could submit tests for branches in dev | |
| [23:18] <hazmat> via an api | |
| [23:19] <hazmat> w/ the security integration tests get about 30% slower out of the box on average... | |
| [23:19] <jimbaker`> tests will get merged as normal i would think. at some point, we will have jenkins integration, it would be simple/trivial to do | |
| [23:19] <hazmat> jimbaker`, i guess i'm confused what's running the tests? your not using jenkins or buildbot? | |
| [23:21] <jimbaker`> i'm using two new tools: butler.py, which i just wrote; and niemeyer's churn, which executes bash scripts | |
| [23:21] <jimbaker`> a butler used to manage the buttery, which might store the results of the churning... | |
| [23:22] <jimbaker`> and of course jenkins is presumably a butler. whatever ;) | |
| [23:22] <hazmat> not sure i understand why.. but okay | |
| [23:22] <jimbaker`> hazmat, at some point jenkins is presumed. twisted trial however is definitely not going to be used | |
| [23:23] <jimbaker`> the reason is that we need something that is focused on running ensemble commands | |
| [23:23] <hazmat> jimbaker`, i assume the test runner would be doing normal tests and ftests | |
| [23:23] <hazmat> is that not accurate? | |
| [23:23] <jimbaker`> that's not accurate | |
| [23:23] <jimbaker`> it's only running ftests, which are to be only be written using bash | |
| [23:24] <jimbaker`> that's niemeyer's decision, and it makes sense | |
| [23:24] <hazmat> from a purpose of ease of test dev for users probably | |
| [23:24] <jimbaker`> such test scripts could potentially use resources that are written in python, eg to validate results or to wait for resources | |
| [23:25] <hazmat> still i seems like conflating issues, an ftest suite and test suite, and the test bot | |
| [23:26] <jimbaker`> hazmat, perhaps, but it's hopefully what was requested by niemeyer. again i think it's pretty simple, and it will integrate well w/ jenkins eventually, just need to emit junitxml instead of the summary html file | |
| [23:26] <hazmat> jimbaker`, fair enough.. we need a test runner for the ftests that does reports | |
| [23:27] <jimbaker`> and that's the merge proposal :) | |
| [23:32] <hazmat> bcsaller, do you have a moment to catch up? | |
| [23:33] <bcsaller> hazmat: sure do | |
| [23:47] <hazmat> bcsaller, ~hazmat/ensemble/local-unit-deploy is the latest in the pipeline | |
| [23:47] <bcsaller> hazmat: thanks | |
| [23:59] <niemeyer> jimbaker`: lbox propose --for lp:ensemble/ftests | |
| [23:59] <niemeyer> Sorry, single dash | |
| [23:59] <niemeyer> jimbaker`: lbox propose -for lp:ensemble/ftests | |