| *** dimtruck is now known as zz_dimtruck | 00:09 | |
| *** zz_dimtruck is now known as dimtruck | 00:20 | |
| *** dimtruck is now known as zz_dimtruck | 00:30 | |
| *** zz_dimtruck is now known as dimtruck | 00:39 | |
| *** dimtruck is now known as zz_dimtruck | 01:18 | |
| *** zz_dimtruck is now known as dimtruck | 01:19 | |
| *** alee has joined #openstack-barbican | 02:02 | |
| *** alee_out has quit IRC | 02:02 | |
| *** dimtruck is now known as zz_dimtruck | 02:24 | |
| *** zz_dimtruck is now known as dimtruck | 03:41 | |
| *** usimba has joined #openstack-barbican | 03:46 | |
| *** dimtruck is now known as zz_dimtruck | 03:51 | |
| *** usimba has quit IRC | 07:51 | |
| *** zz_dimtruck is now known as dimtruck | 09:34 | |
| *** dimtruck is now known as zz_dimtruck | 09:44 | |
| *** juantwo_ has joined #openstack-barbican | 10:45 | |
| *** juantwo has quit IRC | 10:48 | |
| *** juantwo_ has quit IRC | 11:53 | |
| *** juantwo has joined #openstack-barbican | 11:54 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #openstack-barbican | 12:14 | |
| *** woodster_ has joined #openstack-barbican | 12:25 | |
| openstackgerrit | A change was merged to openstack/barbican-specs: Stop using intersphinx https://review.openstack.org/121291 | 13:02 |
|---|---|---|
| *** nkinder_ has quit IRC | 13:12 | |
| openstackgerrit | A change was merged to openstack/barbican: Typos 'asychronous' and 'formated' https://review.openstack.org/122825 | 13:13 |
| *** denis_makogon has quit IRC | 13:34 | |
| *** zz_dimtruck is now known as dimtruck | 13:44 | |
| *** dimtruck is now known as zz_dimtruck | 13:53 | |
| *** jaosorior has joined #openstack-barbican | 13:54 | |
| jaosorior | Hello people :D | 13:55 |
| *** ayoung has joined #openstack-barbican | 14:11 | |
| *** nkinder_ has joined #openstack-barbican | 14:14 | |
| *** zz_dimtruck is now known as dimtruck | 14:29 | |
| *** atiwari has joined #openstack-barbican | 14:31 | |
| chellygel | hey jaosorior !! | 14:48 |
| chellygel | how are you? | 14:48 |
| jaosorior | chillin' reviewing some code | 14:50 |
| jaosorior | how's it going over there? | 14:50 |
| jaosorior | Paris already booked and everything? :D | 14:51 |
| chellygel | haha yeah, it looks like the team is getting everything ready for the presentation :) | 14:55 |
| chellygel | you will be going, right? | 14:55 |
| jaosorior | awesome, where are you guys staying? | 14:55 |
| chellygel | umm, im not sure. i'm not able to go this year! | 14:56 |
| chellygel | but, i think they are taking care of all that stuff this week | 14:56 |
| *** paul_glass has joined #openstack-barbican | 14:56 | |
| chellygel | hope its close enough to grab a beer with you though! haha | 14:56 |
| chellygel | or wine.. whatever | 14:56 |
| chellygel | haha | 14:56 |
| *** bubbva_ has quit IRC | 14:57 | |
| *** bubbva_ has joined #openstack-barbican | 14:58 | |
| jaosorior | Both :P | 14:58 |
| jaosorior | Well, I'm staying at the Mercure in case they have the option for that one | 14:58 |
| chellygel | i'll pass that along! | 14:58 |
| jaosorior | But bummer that you couldn't make it :/ | 14:58 |
| chellygel | no worries! | 14:58 |
| *** paul_glass has quit IRC | 14:59 | |
| chellygel | im just going to have high expectations as to the gifts the team has to bring back to me ;P | 14:59 |
| jaosorior | Haha nice | 14:59 |
| jaosorior | What's new over there? | 15:00 |
| *** paul_glass has joined #openstack-barbican | 15:02 | |
| chellygel | nothing too much on my end. nothing exciting worth sharing | 15:03 |
| chellygel | how about yourself? | 15:03 |
| *** paul_glass1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 15:05 | |
| *** paul_glass has quit IRC | 15:08 | |
| *** jamielennox has quit IRC | 15:22 | |
| *** kebray has joined #openstack-barbican | 15:23 | |
| *** jorge_munoz has joined #openstack-barbican | 15:27 | |
| rm_work | jaosorior: thanks for the +1s :) hopefully should be in a state where people can pass these reviews without too much hesitation | 15:40 |
| jaosorior | rm_work: no prob dude. Sorry about the delays in the reviews. Lately I've been doing OpenStack stuff only on my free time. Too many other things in my backlog that my PO put as high prio :/ . But hopefully it calms down soon and I can use my work time again :) | 15:45 |
| *** SheenaG1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 15:49 | |
| redrobot | rm_work yo! | 15:52 |
| woodster_ | jaosorior: thanks for the free cycles on Barbican! | 15:54 |
| openstackgerrit | Arvind Tiwari proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Code clean-up due to type order enhancement https://review.openstack.org/121269 | 15:57 |
| rm_work | redrobot: :) | 15:58 |
| rm_work | redrobot: you wanna go +2 me? :) | 15:59 |
| redrobot | eh... it's definitely much better | 15:59 |
| redrobot | what's the deal with the **kwargs in the constructors? why do we need to account for unexpected arguments? | 16:00 |
| redrobot | They're not being used in the constructor AFAICT | 16:00 |
| redrobot | any chance we can make consumer registration work off the Continaer objects? | 16:01 |
| redrobot | Do we still want to have the delete() method on the Container? I'm not seeing it right now. | 16:06 |
| *** usimba has joined #openstack-barbican | 16:09 | |
| rm_work | redrobot: **kwargs in the constructors allow passing through the direct response from a GET, which includes some stuff we throw away | 16:09 |
| *** usimba has quit IRC | 16:09 | |
| *** usimba has joined #openstack-barbican | 16:09 | |
| redrobot | eh... that's ugly. :-\ | 16:10 |
| rm_work | redrobot: the whole point of consumer is that we DON'T ever do a GET without registering, and if it were on the objects, it'd require GETing the object first :P | 16:10 |
| rm_work | redrobot: if you saw the alternative, you'd say this was really clean :) | 16:10 |
| rm_work | the alternative is mangling the GET returns manually | 16:11 |
| redrobot | I would prefer that, since consumer code won't see it anyway. I would rather consuming code not be allowed to pass in whatever to the constructor | 16:11 |
| rm_work | either blacklisting some attributes (which assumes we know 100% of what's coming back, and would break if anything new showed up) or whitelisting by creating a new dict, which would be crazy verbose and really just isn't necessary | 16:11 |
| rm_work | redrobot: well, consuming code doesn't ever call the constructors | 16:12 |
| redrobot | it's a public class, so they're not _supposed_ to instantiate directly, but they could anyway, and allowing **kwargs doesn't sit well with me | 16:12 |
| rm_work | well, what exactly could they do with it? | 16:13 |
| rm_work | they literally get thrown away | 16:13 |
| rm_work | and that is preventing what would probably be an extra 40 lines of code for no reason | 16:13 |
| redrobot | right, but the signature of the constructor allows anything to be passed in. I would rather be explicit about what is needed to instantiate the object. | 16:13 |
| rm_work | it is explicit about what is actually used | 16:14 |
| rm_work | i'm not JUST using kwargs | 16:14 |
| redrobot | right, but catch-all kwargs is a bad practice in my book. | 16:14 |
| redrobot | especially because we're not doing anything with it | 16:14 |
| rm_work | I'll pastebin you later today what the alternative looks like | 16:14 |
| rm_work | it is really ugly | 16:14 |
| rm_work | and makes the factory methods gross | 16:15 |
| rm_work | for, again, no real benefit that I can see | 16:15 |
| rm_work | redrobot: nothing against pep8 here for you to fall back on… >_> | 16:16 |
| rm_work | don't think I'm going to be changing this one :( | 16:16 |
| rm_work | would be sad to not get your +2, but not the end of the world I guess | 16:16 |
| redrobot | nope, just my opinion that **kwargs make for ugly fragile code | 16:17 |
| rm_work | redrobot: funny, because the alternative is what's fragile :P | 16:17 |
| rm_work | kwargs here specifically prevent breakage in any scenario | 16:17 |
| rm_work | I'm interested in your definition of "fragile" | 16:18 |
| redrobot | basically, what you see as a benefit "I can pass in whatever, and it doesn't matter" seems like a deficiency to me. I would prefer that constructors accept only what they need | 16:19 |
| redrobot | it encourages bad code in that you no longer care about what is bing passed in, to the point where you don't really know what goes in, and whether it's needed or not. | 16:20 |
| redrobot | makes it harder to refactor later, so you'll always need **kwargs there. | 16:20 |
| rm_work | redrobot: would you seriously rather mangle the REST Response from Barbican to remove specific variables? | 16:20 |
| rm_work | or the alternative | 16:20 |
| rm_work | would you rather specifically compile a new dict to pass through? | 16:20 |
| rm_work | I'd assume the latter would be the only reasonable choiced | 16:21 |
| rm_work | *choice | 16:21 |
| redrobot | either that, or explicity .get every property you need from the response | 16:21 |
| redrobot | we don't expect users of the lib to pass in raw responses, so I don't think we should expose that in the method sigs | 16:22 |
| rm_work | we don't expect users to USE the classes directly either | 16:22 |
| redrobot | they could, by reading the constructor sig, and passing in the client object. | 16:24 |
| woodster_ | rm_work: what are the **kwargs there for again? I don't see them used? | 16:24 |
| rm_work | they are not used | 16:24 |
| rm_work | they're to allow a clean interface between the constructors for the classes and the GET Response from Barbican | 16:25 |
| rm_work | we pull out what we want as specific args and leave the rest of the stuff we don't care about in kwargs | 16:25 |
| reaperhulk | and this is to avoid building a new dict? | 16:25 |
| redrobot | or to avoid .getting every property we do need. | 16:26 |
| rm_work | yes, because what is the point of building a new dict here? | 16:26 |
| rm_work | yeah, those two | 16:26 |
| rm_work | I could also have put in each arg specifically and just not used them | 16:26 |
| redrobot | I don't think avoiding either one of those is worth adding a catch-all to the constructors | 16:26 |
| reaperhulk | The point is you're now creating an implicit assumption that the kwarg naming in the constructor will always match the key naming in the JSON response... | 16:26 |
| rm_work | that is the idea, yes -- the constructor should match the barbican GET response | 16:27 |
| redrobot | I think that .getting each property individually also gives you the benefit of not necessarily needing the response to match the constructor. | 16:27 |
| rm_work | I guess that just falls into the category of painfully verbose, to me -- since we know what's getting read on the other side, what's the difference? we're now ignoring anything left in the original dict, just the same | 16:29 |
| rm_work | it's getting thrown away without being read exactly the same | 16:29 |
| rm_work | just now we're being 15 times as verbose but in a redundant way | 16:29 |
| redrobot | rm_work yes, but we don't have to add a catch-all **kwargs to the constructor signature. | 16:30 |
| redrobot | and I see that as a huge benefit | 16:30 |
| rm_work | i still don't see why | 16:30 |
| redrobot | since these are not private classes, and they could be instantiated by consuming code | 16:30 |
| rm_work | sure | 16:30 |
| rm_work | but… why is that dangerous? | 16:30 |
| redrobot | basically reducing the contract of the constructor | 16:30 |
| rm_work | do you think people will just randomly code their stuff to throw funny args at it like "haha_my_extra_arg=8" for no reason? | 16:31 |
| redrobot | it's not dangerous, per-se. I think it's just ugly/bad code. | 16:31 |
| rm_work | I'm firmly in the camp that the alternative looks worse | 16:32 |
| rm_work | I think if you go back just a bit in patchsets, it WAS explicit | 16:32 |
| rm_work | at some point | 16:32 |
| rm_work | blah, if *everyone* likes it better your way, fine <_< | 16:34 |
| rm_work | this just looks 100% cleaner to me | 16:34 |
| rm_work | it's depressing watching this stuff go from slick and clean to … bleh | 16:35 |
| redrobot | sorry rm_work... It's just that I'd rather have a clean interface, than clean code | 16:36 |
| openstackgerrit | A change was merged to openstack/kite: Work toward Python 3.4 support and testing https://review.openstack.org/118780 | 16:36 |
| redrobot | the interface hides the uglyness | 16:36 |
| redrobot | rm_work care for some Korean loonch? | 16:41 |
| rm_work | redrobot: i'm down | 16:41 |
| rm_work | which one | 16:42 |
| rm_work | redrobot: will have to meet you there, I'm at home :P | 16:42 |
| redrobot | Seoul Asian Market & Cafe | 16:42 |
| rm_work | but could leave whenev | 16:42 |
| redrobot | chellygel and I are leaving the rack in 3 min. | 16:42 |
| rm_work | lol k | 16:42 |
| rm_work | might be a few after you | 16:42 |
| rm_work | but i'll leave now | 16:42 |
| rm_work | feel free to be delayed slightly :P | 16:46 |
| *** bdpayne has joined #openstack-barbican | 16:51 | |
| *** juantwo_ has joined #openstack-barbican | 17:00 | |
| *** juantwo has quit IRC | 17:03 | |
| *** gyee has joined #openstack-barbican | 17:21 | |
| *** akoneru has joined #openstack-barbican | 17:34 | |
| *** gyee has quit IRC | 17:43 | |
| *** gyee has joined #openstack-barbican | 17:53 | |
| *** juantwo_ has quit IRC | 18:01 | |
| *** juantwo has joined #openstack-barbican | 18:01 | |
| *** arunkant_work has joined #openstack-barbican | 18:01 | |
| arunkant_work | woodster_, jvrbanac: Can you please review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/110817/ . There are no significant changes since your last review. | 18:27 |
| *** gyee has quit IRC | 18:30 | |
| *** openstack has joined #openstack-barbican | 18:55 | |
| alee | woodster_, jvrbanac redrobot - can you start reviewing https://review.openstack.org/117845 ? | 18:55 |
| *** jenkins-keep has joined #openstack-barbican | 19:09 | |
| *** kebray has quit IRC | 19:30 | |
| *** kaitlin-farr has joined #openstack-barbican | 19:45 | |
| *** rellerreller has joined #openstack-barbican | 19:46 | |
| SheenaG1 | redrobot: we still having the 3 o'clock? | 19:59 |
| redrobot | SheenaG1 yes! Thanks for the heads up | 19:59 |
| SheenaG1 | woot woto | 19:59 |
| SheenaG1 | woot* | 19:59 |
| redrobot | Weekly Meeting starting now in #openstack-meeting-alt | 20:00 |
| *** gyee has joined #openstack-barbican | 20:02 | |
| *** kebray has joined #openstack-barbican | 20:08 | |
| *** ayoung is now known as ayoung-afk | 20:20 | |
| *** jaosorior has quit IRC | 20:22 | |
| *** kebray has quit IRC | 20:26 | |
| *** kebray has joined #openstack-barbican | 20:30 | |
| *** usimba has quit IRC | 20:49 | |
| *** bdpayne has quit IRC | 20:57 | |
| alee | akoneru, so you're all set then on the jenkins errors? | 20:58 |
| akoneru | alee, yes. i will know once i update my CR. | 20:58 |
| openstackgerrit | Abhishek Koneru proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Add asymmetric key generation in dogtag plugin https://review.openstack.org/117845 | 21:11 |
| atiwari | redrobot, yt? | 21:17 |
| redrobot | atiwari yep, what's up? | 21:17 |
| atiwari | redrobot, wondering what is holding https://review.openstack.org/#/c/118697/? | 21:17 |
| atiwari | do we need more review ? | 21:18 |
| redrobot | atiwari yeah, looks like it just needs someone to +Worflow. If I have time today, I'll take a look at it. | 21:18 |
| atiwari | ok | 21:18 |
| atiwari | redrobot, one more. can some look in to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/121269/? | 21:19 |
| atiwari | thanks | 21:19 |
| redrobot | atiwari I'll try to get to that too, have you looked into the dsvm failure? | 21:20 |
| atiwari | redrobot, yep "The Barbican (non-admin) API failed to respond within 20 seconds" | 21:20 |
| atiwari | can not relate with change I have made | 21:21 |
| atiwari | I will also dig more | 21:21 |
| openstackgerrit | Arvind Tiwari proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Code clean-up due to type order enhancement https://review.openstack.org/121269 | 21:29 |
| *** SheenaG1 has quit IRC | 21:30 | |
| *** bdpayne has joined #openstack-barbican | 21:30 | |
| *** alee is now known as alee_meeting | 21:31 | |
| *** rellerreller has quit IRC | 21:32 | |
| rm_work | redrobot: oh, and yeah, .delete() was inexplicably missing, I've added it | 21:48 |
| *** paul_glass1 has quit IRC | 21:49 | |
| openstackgerrit | A change was merged to openstack/barbican: Fixing the PYTHONHASHSEED bug with our unittests https://review.openstack.org/121386 | 22:12 |
| *** kaitlin-farr has quit IRC | 22:22 | |
| akoneru | reaperhulk, ping | 22:23 |
| reaperhulk | what's up | 22:23 |
| reaperhulk | Saw you pinging over the weekend, sorry I didn't catch you | 22:23 |
| akoneru | reaperhulk, i have a problem with my CR. the gate-barbican-python26 tests are failing. need some help | 22:25 |
| akoneru | reaperhulk, in the console.html, i see the following error - barbican.tests.plugin.test_dogtagNon-zero exit code (2) from test listing. | 22:25 |
| akoneru | reaperhulk, the complete log - http://logs.openstack.org/45/117845/6/check/gate-barbican-python26/1ed319b/console.html | 22:25 |
| reaperhulk | taking a look | 22:27 |
| reaperhulk | :/ useless console output, heh | 22:28 |
| reaperhulk | let me try checking your CR out and running locally | 22:28 |
| akoneru | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/117845/ | 22:28 |
| akoneru | hmm. ok. | 22:28 |
| rm_work | redrobot: I decided to move my line a bit, I'm willing to show the user something they shouldn't really be seeing in the function signature, in order to keep the code quite a bit cleaner | 22:30 |
| rm_work | about to submit | 22:30 |
| reaperhulk | well at least it's consistent. I'm able to replicate locally. Now to convince testr to actually show me something useful. | 22:30 |
| redrobot | rm_work smh... so totally not what we all agreed on :-P | 22:31 |
| rm_work | <_< | 22:31 |
| akoneru | reaperhulk, so, you seem to be running tox - i tried setting it up but wasn't able to do it. Any docs i can refer to? | 22:31 |
| rm_work | I think you'll be ok with it | 22:32 |
| redrobot | maybe? ... are you specifying secre_refs in the RSA and Cert containers? | 22:32 |
| redrobot | if so, what happens when I set it? | 22:32 |
| reaperhulk | akoneru: All you need for tox is "pip install tox". Then when you do something like "tox -e py26" it will build a virtualenv and run the tests inside it based on the config in tox.ini (py26 being python 2.6 of course) | 22:32 |
| rm_work | redrobot: right, that's exactly it... and if you set it... it "works", but there's no validation, so it might explode when you try to save it, but that's the user's fault I guess | 22:33 |
| rm_work | but if they actually do set it up right, it'll work | 22:33 |
| rm_work | just sub-optimal, IMO | 22:33 |
| redrobot | so what does dir(RSAContainer.__init__) have to say? | 22:33 |
| rm_work | I'm actually testing now to make sure that what I just said is correct | 22:34 |
| rm_work | well, i got delayed a bit by pulling barbican master and having to reset my DB | 22:34 |
| akoneru | reaperhulk, ok | 22:34 |
| redrobot | it would be awesomer if it just wasn't in the init args at all | 22:34 |
| rm_work | well, they're ... a bit different | 22:34 |
| rm_work | is the problem | 22:35 |
| rm_work | secret_refs is a list of *refs* | 22:35 |
| rm_work | the other args (the ones used for creation) are supposed to be Secret objects | 22:35 |
| rm_work | so the only way to keep it lazy on get() operations is to continue to allow secret_refs to go through | 22:35 |
| redrobot | but for RSAContainer for example, you wouldn't be able to user secret_refs correctly anway. | 22:36 |
| rm_work | well, you *could* | 22:36 |
| rm_work | it's possible | 22:36 |
| redrobot | since you cant' specify which is what in a list? | 22:36 |
| rm_work | you can | 22:36 |
| rm_work | it's just hard :P | 22:36 |
| rm_work | and actually, I realized I was being inconsistent with that | 22:37 |
| redrobot | so, it's a list of hrefs you pass to the Container constructor? | 22:37 |
| rm_work | yes | 22:37 |
| jenkins-keep | Project openstack-barbican-cloudcafe build #35: STILL FAILING in 14 min: http://jenkins.cloudkeep.io/job/openstack-barbican-cloudcafe/35/ | 22:37 |
| jenkins-keep | John Vrbanac: Fixing the PYTHONHASHSEED bug with our unittests | 22:37 |
| rm_work | which is a bit funky | 22:37 |
| rm_work | I am changing it now to take a list of Secrets | 22:38 |
| rm_work | I think | 22:38 |
| rm_work | well | 22:38 |
| rm_work | both, technically | 22:38 |
| rm_work | since it still needs to be able to take the refs to stay lazy <_< | 22:38 |
| rm_work | honestly it is WAY easier to just create it and use the .add() function, lol | 22:39 |
| redrobot | haha... then remove secret_refs from the constructor altogether? | 22:39 |
| rm_work | tempted, but then it doesn't adhere to the BP | 22:40 |
| redrobot | that's ok, I think we're way past adhering to the BP by now | 22:40 |
| rm_work | true | 22:40 |
| reaperhulk | akoneru: Your problem is a syntax error in python2.6 on line 150 of dogtag.py | 22:40 |
| reaperhulk | if secret_type in {sstore.SecretType.PUBLIC, | 22:40 |
| reaperhulk | sstore.SecretType.PRIVATE}: | 22:40 |
| reaperhulk | That isn't valid syntax in python 2.6 | 22:40 |
| reaperhulk | Switch it to a list or tuple | 22:41 |
| akoneru | reaperhulk, oh. thanks! will get it corrected. So for running tox -e py26, should i pre install pyhton 2.6 on the system? Or will tox install 2.6 in the virtualenv that it creates? | 22:42 |
| reaperhulk | Yeah you'll need "python2.6" available in your $PATH | 22:42 |
| reaperhulk | So pre-install it | 22:42 |
| akoneru | reaperhulk, oh. ok. thanks! | 22:43 |
| rm_work | redrobot: oh, right, I remember now why I used secret_refs | 22:45 |
| *** kebray has quit IRC | 22:46 | |
| rm_work | erk, maybe not | 22:46 |
| rm_work | this is a mess T_T | 22:46 |
| rm_work | i'm going to redo this whole bit | 22:46 |
| redrobot | rm_work (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ | 22:47 |
| rm_work | yes | 22:47 |
| woodster_ | ¯\(°_o)/¯ | 22:53 |
| chellygel | lololol | 23:03 |
| *** dimtruck is now known as zz_dimtruck | 23:05 | |
| openstackgerrit | Abhishek Koneru proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Add asymmetric key generation in dogtag plugin https://review.openstack.org/117845 | 23:06 |
| *** nkinder_ has quit IRC | 23:07 | |
| *** akoneru is now known as akoneru_afk | 23:23 | |
| *** akoneru_afk has quit IRC | 23:28 | |
| *** atiwari has quit IRC | 23:29 | |
| *** zz_dimtruck is now known as dimtruck | 23:42 | |
| *** arunkant_work has quit IRC | 23:54 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!