14:31:12 #startmeeting Pulp Triage 2019-07-12 14:31:12 #info dalley has joined triage 14:31:12 !start 14:31:12 Meeting started Fri Jul 12 14:31:12 2019 UTC. The chair is dalley. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:31:12 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 14:31:12 The meeting name has been set to 'pulp_triage_2019-07-12' 14:31:12 dalley: dalley has joined triage 14:31:15 !here 14:31:15 #info daviddavis has joined triage 14:31:16 daviddavis: daviddavis has joined triage 14:31:25 morre: Totally understandable. Overcoming the limitation is on my to-do; probably via rook. 14:31:28 #info mikedep333 has joined triage 14:31:28 !here 14:31:28 mikedep333: mikedep333 has joined triage 14:31:31 #info ggainey has joined triage 14:31:31 !here 14:31:31 ggainey: ggainey has joined triage 14:31:56 !next 14:31:56 dalley: 4 issues left to triage: 5118, 5109, 5104, 5101 14:31:57 #topic https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5118 14:31:57 #info ppicka has joined triage 14:31:57 !here 14:31:58 RM 5118 - daviddavis - NEW - We're not running flake8 against pulp/pulp 14:31:59 https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5118 14:32:00 ppicka: ppicka has joined triage 14:32:04 #info bmbouter has joined triage 14:32:04 !here 14:32:04 bmbouter: bmbouter has joined triage 14:32:37 !friday 14:32:37 ♪ It's Friday, Friday, gotta get down on Friday ♪ 14:32:48 #info ttereshc has joined triage 14:32:48 !here 14:32:48 ttereshc: ttereshc has joined triage 14:32:50 \o/ 14:33:08 #info dkliban has joined triage 14:33:08 !here 14:33:08 dkliban: dkliban has joined triage 14:33:32 we are running flake8 on pulp/pulp but only on Jenkins 14:33:33 accept? 14:33:49 +1 14:33:50 or at least i thought we were 14:33:53 dkliban: are you sure? I see lines over 100 chars 14:33:54 anyway, let's accept 14:34:00 k 14:34:01 +1 to accept 14:34:03 +1 14:34:06 !accept 14:34:06 dalley: No action proposed, nothing to accept. 14:34:11 #idea Proposed for #5118: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:34:11 !propose accept 14:34:11 dalley: Proposed for #5118: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:34:17 #agreed Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:34:17 !accept 14:34:17 dalley: Current proposal accepted: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:34:18 dalley: 3 issues left to triage: 5109, 5104, 5101 14:34:18 #topic https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5109 14:34:19 RM 5109 - jokabo - NEW - 500 - illegal-argument: Value for replyText is too large(320) 14:34:20 https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5109 14:34:53 i'll comment on this 14:34:58 there is not enough info at this time 14:35:10 I agree 14:35:12 we need to know where he is syncing from at least 14:35:21 we need a reproducer 14:35:32 #info ipanova has joined triage 14:35:32 !here 14:35:32 ipanova: ipanova has joined triage 14:35:32 it seems to be a qpid error 14:35:44 #idea Proposed for #5109: Skip this issue for this triage session. 14:35:44 !propose skip 14:35:44 dalley: Proposed for #5109: Skip this issue for this triage session. 14:36:12 +1 14:36:14 i commented 14:36:21 I mean it;'s likely not related to where he is syncing from 14:36:31 +1 14:36:34 if he gets an error for every plugin 14:36:49 or he said for every project, I read it as for every plugin 14:37:07 I'm fine to skip though 14:37:39 !skip 14:37:39 #topic https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5104 14:37:40 dalley: 2 issues left to triage: 5104, 5101 14:37:41 RM 5104 - dkliban@redhat.com - NEW - Pulp 2 stops working after installing Pulp 3 14:37:42 https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5104 14:38:33 that's... strange 14:38:33 accept and add to sprint 14:38:33 #idea Proposed for #5104: accept and add to the sprint 14:38:33 !propose other accept and add to the sprint 14:38:33 ttereshc: Proposed for #5104: accept and add to the sprint 14:38:57 +1 14:39:34 +1 14:40:15 +1 14:40:22 #agreed accept and add to the sprint 14:40:22 !accept 14:40:22 dalley: Current proposal accepted: accept and add to the sprint 14:40:23 #topic https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5101 14:40:23 dalley: 1 issues left to triage: 5101 14:40:24 RM 5101 - bmbouter - NEW - Content filters in DRF don't show correctly 14:40:25 https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5101 14:41:04 accept? 14:41:07 yes 14:41:29 +1 14:41:33 +1 14:41:34 #idea Proposed for #5101: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:41:34 !propose accept 14:41:34 dalley: Proposed for #5101: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:41:34 +1 14:42:15 #agreed Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:42:15 !accept 14:42:15 dalley: Current proposal accepted: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:42:16 dalley: No issues to triage. 14:42:29 open floor commence -> 14:44:26 we have one issue that needs planning attention 14:45:48 dkliban: fixed bits are live 14:46:02 pcreech++ 14:46:03 ggainey: pcreech's karma is now 96 14:48:30 pcreech++ 14:48:30 rchan: pcreech's karma is now 97 14:49:06 bmbouter, what issue? 14:49:49 I'm looking 14:49:54 it's the one you commented on most recently 14:51:45 do you mean at retro? 14:51:49 or redmine comment 14:51:51 https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4681#note-14 14:52:24 this proposal is pretty major https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4681#note-11 14:53:42 or are you just saying break it from the overall inheritance 14:54:14 what do you mean break it from the overall inheritance 14:55:03 I think ditching model inheritance for the Content models 14:55:07 from comment 11 I think I don't understand "we could just ditch model inheritance for the content models entirely" 14:55:47 bmbouter, the proposal is basically to turn the Package is-a Content relationship into a Package has-a content relationship, which is the same way it's *actually* represented in the database 14:57:33 and if we're at the point where the end user has to manually name the link back to Content anyways to avoid the issue --- that separation has already been exposed through the API regardless of our attempt to hide it 14:58:03 the issue = 4861 14:58:09 yup 14:59:15 have we tried to look at renaming the link automatically for the plugin writer to include the app label? 15:00:01 I'm ok w/ not having it be an automatic thing 15:00:18 daviddavis, how would that work? it would have to be automatic at schema-generation time 15:00:36 ie. when django is making the migrations, not when it's running 15:00:56 it's only the reverse parent link which doesn't exist in the database 15:01:07 agreed 15:01:11 that's my understanding 15:01:47 I'm not sure, the first 4 error messages look like that is the case, but the next 2: 15:01:48 rpm.Package.release: (models.E006) The field 'release' clashes with the field 'release' from model 'core.content'. 15:01:48 rpm.UpdateRecord.release: (models.E006) The field 'release' clashes with the field 'release' from model 'core.content'. 15:02:51 that could still be true, I don't necessarily know how to parse the meaning of that, it just sounds lower-level than the runtime ORM 15:03:42 I'm reading this and it sounds like it was maybe a 1-line thing? https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4681#note-8 15:05:59 I think it possibly could be 15:06:42 practically speaking I think we need to do that first before we consider a large change 15:08:08 that's cool. I can try to take a look into it this sprint. if it fails, we can discuss other proposals like dalley's? 15:08:09 we can and I'm fine w/ that. I just wanted to point out that we're leaking abstractions now and that by getting rid of them in this one specific place we could enable much better performance 15:08:49 Hi guys! Do you use tmux in vagrant's VM? 15:08:56 I am connected to the VM via ssh 15:09:18 lmjachky: I go the other way around. tmux and then ssh into the VM. 15:09:30 I edit files on my host os 15:09:32 I start tmux, and when I type "pstop && pclean && pstart" I get a (pulp) venv within (pulp) venv 15:09:41 Is it normal behavior? 15:09:59 dalley: I hear you 15:10:36 dalley: I don't think of it as a goeal to hide the machinery from plugin writers as much as to keep the complexity down 15:10:53 if this few line solution doesn't pan out we may have to do what you're saying 15:11:01 and the bulk_insert gains make sense also 15:11:19 we should end open floor so we can go to rpm meeting 15:11:31 it's a decision we have to make before GA though, FWIW 15:11:52 dalley: if this issue resolves do you still want to consider it? 15:12:25 we can wait until we start getting back performance data 15:12:27 at least 15:12:50 agreed 15:13:16 speaking of which psuriset is it possible for us to start testing soon? 15:13:48 dalley, bmbouter , can we call this openfloor closed and proceed with rpm meeting ? 15:13:55 yes 15:13:56 #endmeeting 15:13:56 !end