| *** nkinder has joined #openstack-barbican | 00:03 | |
| openstackgerrit | Adam Harwell proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Making a few MORE modules hacking 0.9.2 compliant https://review.openstack.org/117404 | 00:05 |
|---|---|---|
| rm_work | reaperhulk: actually fixed ANOTHER instance of the same issue... >_> | 00:05 |
| rm_work | this CR may be getting out of hand (but the testing is there for both) | 00:05 |
| rm_work | (I included the test for that as part of the basic creation test that already existed, because really it is just part of verifying that the creation worked correctly) | 00:06 |
| rm_work | alright bbl | 00:12 |
| *** kebray has quit IRC | 00:19 | |
| *** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 00:31 | |
| openstackgerrit | Chelsea Winfree proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Adding initial update logic for orders https://review.openstack.org/117386 | 00:33 |
| *** lisaclark1 has quit IRC | 00:33 | |
| chellygel | alee, woodster --> That latest patch removes the save to the order model. In the interest of keeping this CR small, I didn't add the new path with updated_meta -- but i hope to have that done tomorrow in a dependent CR | 00:34 |
| rm_you| | ?whew, home | 00:42 |
| rm_you| | chellygel: hadn't actually been home yet, landed at went to work >_< | 00:43 |
| chellygel | wat? | 00:43 |
| rm_you| | *landed and | 00:43 |
| chellygel | oh damn! | 00:43 |
| chellygel | thats crazy | 00:43 |
| openstackgerrit | A change was merged to openstack/barbican: Make a whole host of modules hacking 0.9.2 compliant https://review.openstack.org/118248 | 00:44 |
| rm_you| | side effect of being stingy with ETO :P | 00:44 |
| rm_you| | work from hotel room -> train to airport -> airport -> plane -> after landing | 00:44 |
| rm_you| | working remote can be exciting :P | 00:44 |
| chellygel | i agree, it definitely can be! | 00:47 |
| chellygel | i love reading docs ... when they are like "Oh hey, here's all these release notes for the past 102398123 years.... and heres 2 lines of info you care about... then another 023982083 lines of stuff from the past that is unrelated" | 00:57 |
| chellygel | wat?? | 00:57 |
| chellygel | lol | 00:57 |
| *** gyee has quit IRC | 01:04 | |
| *** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 01:17 | |
| *** ayoung_ has joined #openstack-barbican | 01:26 | |
| *** juantwo_ has joined #openstack-barbican | 01:35 | |
| *** juantwo has quit IRC | 01:35 | |
| rm_you| | heh yes | 01:57 |
| *** lisaclark1 has quit IRC | 02:10 | |
| *** bdpayne has joined #openstack-barbican | 02:22 | |
| *** ayoung_ is now known as ayoung | 02:23 | |
| *** woodster has quit IRC | 02:45 | |
| *** bdpayne has quit IRC | 03:53 | |
| *** bdpayne has joined #openstack-barbican | 03:54 | |
| *** ajc_ has joined #openstack-barbican | 04:04 | |
| *** sld has joined #openstack-barbican | 04:41 | |
| *** bdpayne has quit IRC | 04:45 | |
| openstackgerrit | Steve Martinelli proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Move to oslotest https://review.openstack.org/116700 | 04:50 |
| *** juantwo has joined #openstack-barbican | 04:55 | |
| *** juantwo has quit IRC | 04:56 | |
| *** juantwo_ has quit IRC | 04:59 | |
| *** jaosorior has joined #openstack-barbican | 05:01 | |
| *** kebray has joined #openstack-barbican | 05:02 | |
| *** kebray has quit IRC | 05:03 | |
| *** kebray has joined #openstack-barbican | 05:04 | |
| *** bdpayne has joined #openstack-barbican | 05:24 | |
| *** rm_mobile has joined #openstack-barbican | 05:39 | |
| rm_mobile | jaosorior: hey | 05:39 |
| rm_mobile | I put in a CR | 05:40 |
| jaosorior | Awesome | 05:40 |
| rm_mobile | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/118494/ | 05:40 |
| jaosorior | I'll check it out when I get to the office :) I'm on the bus | 05:41 |
| rm_mobile | Trying to figure out what's with the py33 fail | 05:41 |
| rm_mobile | Kk | 05:41 |
| rm_mobile | That failure was happening locally too but I was leaving the office | 05:41 |
| rm_mobile | Testr errors out before tests even run | 05:41 |
| rm_mobile | I don't really know how testr works yet | 05:42 |
| rm_mobile | Point being, ignore the fail for now, the code should be good | 05:42 |
| jaosorior | Damn | 05:43 |
| rm_mobile | Or, the approach at least is solid I think | 05:43 |
| jaosorior | I'll see if I can figure it out | 05:43 |
| rm_mobile | K, it's probably something dumb that I missed | 05:44 |
| rm_mobile | I was about to sleep but I figured you might be on around now :P | 05:44 |
| rm_mobile | Wanted to give you a heads up on that | 05:45 |
| *** bdpayne has quit IRC | 06:02 | |
| rm_mobile | jaosorior: where are you again? | 06:06 |
| rm_mobile | Finland? | 06:06 |
| *** denis_makogon has quit IRC | 06:12 | |
| *** denis_makogon has joined #openstack-barbican | 06:12 | |
| jaosorior | rm_mobile | 06:29 |
| jaosorior | yes | 06:29 |
| jaosorior | so it's 9:29 here | 06:29 |
| rm_mobile | Heh | 06:29 |
| rm_mobile | 1:30am here | 06:30 |
| jaosorior | take me about 45 min to get ze office though | 06:30 |
| rm_mobile | I am somewhat used to working with Finns though, did a fair bit of work with Nokia a while ago | 06:31 |
| jaosorior | nice | 06:31 |
| rm_mobile | So I'm used to this particular time differential | 06:31 |
| jaosorior | did you happen to work in the meego/maemo project? | 06:32 |
| rm_mobile | I guess I'll catch you in the morning possibly | 06:32 |
| rm_mobile | Yeah | 06:32 |
| jaosorior | lol, nice | 06:32 |
| jaosorior | I have a bunch of friends and colleagues that worked there | 06:32 |
| rm_mobile | Still | 06:32 |
| jaosorior | well | 06:32 |
| jaosorior | they worked there at some point | 06:32 |
| rm_mobile | Err, still miss maemo | 06:32 |
| jaosorior | now they're either here, or in some other company | 06:32 |
| rm_mobile | Right, not many work there anymore :( | 06:33 |
| jaosorior | well, since they got bought by some ominous company, things got from bad to horrible | 06:33 |
| jaosorior | but well, it happens | 06:33 |
| rm_mobile | Yeah | 06:33 |
| jaosorior | by the way, the p33 tests seem to fail from import errors or something, dafuq O_o | 06:33 |
| rm_mobile | I remember the Elopocalypse | 06:34 |
| rm_mobile | Hmmmm | 06:34 |
| rm_mobile | Interesting, how do you see that? | 06:34 |
| jaosorior | http://logs.openstack.org/94/118494/1/check/gate-python-barbicanclient-python33/6aabd5d/console.html | 06:34 |
| jaosorior | well, it says import errors there | 06:34 |
| jaosorior | might be that there is just some syntax error somewhere, and that causes that to be seen as an import error or something. Might be a bogus message | 06:35 |
| jaosorior | another option is for you to run nosetests (since it should probably work) manually, while having the p33 env activated | 06:39 |
| jaosorior | well, I have some questions about your code, but I guess I'll leave them as comments | 06:40 |
| rm_mobile | Heh | 06:43 |
| rm_mobile | That works | 06:43 |
| rm_mobile | Anything really specific I could clarify now? | 06:43 |
| jaosorior | comments given | 06:47 |
| jaosorior | I am yet to figure out why it fails for py33 though | 06:47 |
| rm_mobile | For the first thing, yeah, I was trying to maintain the recursive display functionality | 06:48 |
| rm_mobile | From my original CR | 06:48 |
| rm_mobile | But yes, it gets quite verbose | 06:48 |
| rm_mobile | If people think it's OK just to show refs, I'm good with that | 06:49 |
| rm_mobile | As to the second comment, I'm still just a journeyman pythoneer | 06:50 |
| rm_mobile | I've seen mixins before but not 100% on how they work exactly | 06:50 |
| rm_mobile | I'll look at that tomorrow | 06:50 |
| jaosorior | well, it's not necessarily a python thing | 06:51 |
| jaosorior | you can do it c++ also (though it can get super confusing if not using boost and/or c++11) | 06:51 |
| rm_mobile | Doing it that way seemed like the least code and simultaneously the most flexible | 06:51 |
| jaosorior | but anyway, this self._get_formatted_data(self) is quite a confusing part | 06:51 |
| rm_mobile | Yeah it's... | 06:51 |
| jaosorior | if you could clarify that in the documentation, or figure out another approach, it would be better | 06:51 |
| rm_mobile | I thought so too but there is a reason | 06:51 |
| rm_mobile | I will look again at trying to fix that | 06:52 |
| rm_mobile | I think the problem is partly because I am sharing that code with Cliff, which expects things a certain way | 06:53 |
| jaosorior | then again, I think the href approach is better, to keep things from getting too verbose | 06:53 |
| rm_mobile | And I am fine with doing hrefs for nested objects | 06:55 |
| jaosorior | excellent | 06:55 |
| rm_mobile | It's really a fairly minor thing, these string representations :0 | 06:56 |
| rm_mobile | Compared to having a working client | 06:56 |
| rm_mobile | Hard to have particularly strong feelings when 90% of their use will probably be for debug messages, lol | 06:56 |
| jaosorior | indeed | 06:56 |
| rm_mobile | If I had my other laptop I'd just fix it now | 06:57 |
| rm_mobile | I honestly feel like I work best from around midnight to 4am | 06:57 |
| rm_mobile | But people on my team like to see me during their waking hours :P | 06:58 |
| jaosorior | hahaha I know, I get the same sometimes :P | 07:00 |
| rm_mobile | Finally going to sleep. Night (morning)! | 07:06 |
| *** rm_mobile has quit IRC | 07:06 | |
| *** kebray has quit IRC | 08:40 | |
| *** jraim_ has quit IRC | 11:03 | |
| *** xaeth has quit IRC | 11:03 | |
| *** jraim__ has joined #openstack-barbican | 11:06 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 11:06 | |
| *** SheenaG1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 11:07 | |
| openstackgerrit | Juan Antonio Osorio Robles proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Remove some inline if/else statements https://review.openstack.org/118603 | 11:08 |
| *** xaeth has joined #openstack-barbican | 11:08 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-barbican | 11:11 | |
| *** SheenaG1 has quit IRC | 11:15 | |
| *** SheenaG1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 11:19 | |
| *** juantwo has joined #openstack-barbican | 11:56 | |
| chellygel | morning guys, afternoon jaosorior ! | 11:57 |
| jaosorior | chellygel: Terve :) | 11:57 |
| chellygel | ooh, what does that mean? | 11:57 |
| jaosorior | hi | 11:58 |
| chellygel | nice! | 11:58 |
| jaosorior | hi or hello -> Terve/moi/hei/morro | 11:58 |
| *** juantwo has quit IRC | 12:06 | |
| *** juantwo has joined #openstack-barbican | 12:06 | |
| jaosorior | anyway, how's it going over there? | 12:27 |
| openstackgerrit | Tim Kelsey proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Adding a plugin to interact with HP Atalla ESKM https://review.openstack.org/116878 | 12:29 |
| chellygel | its going well! | 12:29 |
| chellygel | feel like i have 100 things going on -- so just trying to keep up with that :) | 12:30 |
| chellygel | how about you? | 12:30 |
| jaosorior | too many meetings going on :( | 12:33 |
| jaosorior | but hopefully I can squeeze some time in to do some coding :) | 12:34 |
| openstackgerrit | Juan Antonio Osorio Robles proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Replace explicit assertion for function https://review.openstack.org/118622 | 12:43 |
| *** ajc_ has quit IRC | 12:52 | |
| openstackgerrit | Juan Antonio Osorio Robles proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Remove some inline if/else statements https://review.openstack.org/118603 | 12:58 |
| *** nkinder has quit IRC | 13:11 | |
| *** woodster_ has joined #openstack-barbican | 13:12 | |
| *** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 13:28 | |
| *** lisaclark1 has quit IRC | 13:28 | |
| *** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 13:31 | |
| jaosorior | uhm... so recheck no bug didn't retrigger the tests, did something change? | 13:39 |
| *** ametts has joined #openstack-barbican | 13:45 | |
| *** lisaclark1 has quit IRC | 13:48 | |
| *** rellerreller has joined #openstack-barbican | 13:50 | |
| *** nkinder has joined #openstack-barbican | 13:58 | |
| *** rm_work is now known as rm_work|away | 14:03 | |
| *** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 14:08 | |
| openstackgerrit | Juan Antonio Osorio Robles proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Remove some inline if/else statements https://review.openstack.org/118603 | 14:10 |
| *** kebray has joined #openstack-barbican | 14:12 | |
| *** kebray has quit IRC | 14:13 | |
| *** kebray has joined #openstack-barbican | 14:13 | |
| openstackgerrit | John Wood proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Add initial files for certificate event handling https://review.openstack.org/115301 | 14:18 |
| jvrbanac | jaosorior, ? | 14:18 |
| jaosorior | Nevermind :P | 14:19 |
| jvrbanac | jaosorior, I know they collapsed the CI messages, so sometimes you have to just go look at zuul for your change number | 14:19 |
| jaosorior | Yeah, that confused me, but now I get it | 14:20 |
| woodster_ | alee, arunkant: I've updated the certificate CR per your comments: https://review.openstack.org/115301 | 14:21 |
| *** SheenaG1 has quit IRC | 14:25 | |
| *** paul_glass has joined #openstack-barbican | 14:27 | |
| *** paul_glass has quit IRC | 14:28 | |
| *** paul_glass has joined #openstack-barbican | 14:28 | |
| chellygel | alee, please review the new patch when you can! https://review.openstack.org/#/c/117386/ | 14:35 |
| alee | woodster_, chellygel - will look shortly | 14:35 |
| chellygel | thanks alee :) i appreciate your help! | 14:47 |
| *** atiwari has joined #openstack-barbican | 14:47 | |
| *** SheenaG1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 14:53 | |
| *** SheenaG1 has quit IRC | 14:57 | |
| *** SheenaG1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 14:59 | |
| alee | woodster_, ping | 15:04 |
| *** paul_glass1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 15:04 | |
| *** paul_glass has quit IRC | 15:04 | |
| alee | woodster_, looking at your events CR. trying to understand why barbican/common/hrefs.py is showing up -- with no changes? | 15:05 |
| chellygel | alee, that is weird, right? i see in patch one he had a backslash -- but then it went back to base after that patch | 15:07 |
| *** lisaclark2 has joined #openstack-barbican | 15:10 | |
| *** lisaclark1 has quit IRC | 15:12 | |
| *** bdpayne has joined #openstack-barbican | 15:13 | |
| woodster_ | alee, chellygel: I had to move hrefs.py to common from api, so I could use it to convert the order-id on the tasks/worker side to a HATEOS ref | 15:27 |
| alee | woodster_, right - I'm just tring to understand why its showing up in gerrit with "No changes" | 15:28 |
| woodster_ | ...then that required modifying several files...like that string you pull on a sweater | 15:28 |
| openstackgerrit | Arvind Tiwari proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Reorganize code to use store crypto plug-in https://review.openstack.org/111412 | 15:28 |
| woodster_ | alee: it has an 'R' by it...maybe replace? I didn't modify the contents of the file though | 15:29 |
| *** lisaclark2 has quit IRC | 15:30 | |
| atiwari | hockeynut, yt? | 15:31 |
| alee | woodster_, right - I would think that it would show up as a deletion of hrefs from api and then addition to common | 15:31 |
| alee | or something like that. | 15:32 |
| hockeynut | atiwari here | 15:32 |
| atiwari | sorry man, I was in wrong place :) | 15:32 |
| *** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 15:32 | |
| hockeynut | happens to me all the time | 15:32 |
| atiwari | any ways I have addressed your comments in my new patch | 15:33 |
| hockeynut | thank you sir! | 15:33 |
| atiwari | except the on around \ | 15:33 |
| atiwari | can we address that in separate cr? | 15:33 |
| hockeynut | that's fine - there will be loads of fun when we update hacking | 15:33 |
| atiwari | sure | 15:33 |
| alee | woodster_, did you do some kind of "git rename" or "git move" ? | 15:34 |
| openstackgerrit | Constanze Kratel proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Updated dev guide to include feedback from previous tech review https://review.openstack.org/117889 | 15:35 |
| alee | woodster_, or just git remove / git add? | 15:35 |
| Stanzi | I just submitted a new CR for the Barbican developer guide. Please review at: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/117889/ | 15:36 |
| alee | woodster_, its relevant because if there are no changes in the file, it would be nice to preserve git history | 15:36 |
| woodster_ | alee, jaosorior, hockeynut: Please take another look at this CR when you can: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/116387/ | 15:37 |
| woodster_ | alee: hmm...well I originally tried to use Pycharm to refactor/move that file, but it botched it. So I ended up manually deleting/removing...but again via the IDE. The vim folks on the team are mocking me right about....now! | 15:38 |
| woodster_ | alee: would note that git notes it as: renamed: barbican/api/controllers/hrefs.py -> barbican/common/hrefs.py | 15:39 |
| woodster_ | alee: I recall that git will do such a thing if the file name/content? is the same and just moved. | 15:39 |
| alee | woodster_, and the R might mean "rename". If you do a git log on the file do you see history? | 15:40 |
| alee | might have to do a git log -f -- for follow .. | 15:40 |
| alee | git log --follow | 15:41 |
| woodster_ | alee: This shows me the history of the file, even before the move: git log --follow -p barbican/common/hrefs.py | 15:42 |
| alee | woodster_, ok then we're good. | 15:43 |
| woodster_ | alee: ...so I would think that the history is indeed preserved, and the rename is ok to do then | 15:43 |
| alee | yup | 15:43 |
| Stanzi | I just submitted a new CR for the Barbican developer guide. Please review at: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/117889/ | 15:46 |
| *** Stanzi has joined #openstack-barbican | 15:53 | |
| Stanzi | I just submitted a new CR for the Barbican developer guide. Please review at: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/117889/ | 15:53 |
| *** bdpayne has quit IRC | 15:57 | |
| *** bdpayne has joined #openstack-barbican | 15:59 | |
| redrobot | so... j3 is tomorrow | 16:01 |
| redrobot | what CRs are we looking to land today? | 16:02 |
| chellygel | i believe woodster_ and I are going to try to get the cert stuff in today -- if possible | 16:03 |
| chellygel | the goal is before tomorrow anyway | 16:03 |
| *** codekobe___ has joined #openstack-barbican | 16:04 | |
| *** paul_glass1 has quit IRC | 16:05 | |
| *** lisaclark1 has quit IRC | 16:07 | |
| *** codekobe__ has quit IRC | 16:08 | |
| *** erw has quit IRC | 16:08 | |
| *** jaosorior has quit IRC | 16:08 | |
| *** dougwig has quit IRC | 16:08 | |
| *** arunkant has quit IRC | 16:08 | |
| *** codekobe___ is now known as codekobe__ | 16:08 | |
| *** arunkant has joined #openstack-barbican | 16:09 | |
| *** Stanzi has quit IRC | 16:09 | |
| *** erw_ has joined #openstack-barbican | 16:09 | |
| *** dougwig_ has joined #openstack-barbican | 16:10 | |
| *** jaosorior has joined #openstack-barbican | 16:10 | |
| *** kebray has quit IRC | 16:13 | |
| arunkant | jaosorior, hockeynut, woodster_ , have addressed all concerns..can you review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/110817/ | 16:15 |
| chellygel | alee, thanks for the review, good point w/ error state | 16:16 |
| chellygel | i also believe woodster_ wants to chat later this afternoon about handling the multiple requests -- we had a lengthy discussion yesterday | 16:17 |
| chellygel | alee, briefly we were discussing storing the requests elsewhere and sorting by time requested | 16:17 |
| *** bdpayne_ has joined #openstack-barbican | 16:17 | |
| alee | chellygel, I'll be interested in how we hope to handle that .. I think its going to be tricky. | 16:18 |
| chellygel | alee, yes, as we were tipping around in the discussion yesterday it started getting complicated for sure! | 16:18 |
| chellygel | alee, digging into the symantec side, we are mostly going to be concerned with updates to approver email and contact information -- CSR will not be edited | 16:19 |
| chellygel | alee, with that in mind -- we were discussing what logic flow would be needed to track the retry and stacking scenarios | 16:19 |
| alee | chellygel, woodster_ seems like we are starting to build a big infrastructure to handle updates to orders. Sure you really want to do this? It makes things dead easy if we just require folks to create a new order. | 16:20 |
| *** gyee has joined #openstack-barbican | 16:20 | |
| *** bdpayne has quit IRC | 16:21 | |
| chellygel | alee, woodster_ it wouldn't make sense to cancel the original order though -- just because the user mistyped the email :S | 16:21 |
| alee | chellygel, woodster_ and if all you're doing is updating things like contact info etc., it hardly seems to justify the infrastructure. | 16:21 |
| alee | chellygel, why not? | 16:21 |
| *** rm_work|away is now known as rm_work | 16:22 | |
| chellygel | sending a cancel and creating again, sure for an email -- may not be a big deal... but if a customer already has a processing order and symantec returns an error state, we would not want to create a new order for all of the work syamntec has already done | 16:23 |
| chellygel | for verifications ^ | 16:24 |
| *** Guest22704 has quit IRC | 16:24 | |
| SheenaG1 | alee: it's more confusing for the customer and reseller if we cancel | 16:24 |
| SheenaG1 | alee: I've been manually processing certs with Symantec for 6 months and I almost never see a cert order get through successfully the first time | 16:25 |
| chellygel | alee, in these instances, we may need to update the contact info of the organizational contact, their phone number, or an email | 16:26 |
| rm_work | https://review.openstack.org/#/c/113393/ would be nice, though i guess nt required today if everyone is in J3 mode | 16:26 |
| SheenaG1 | thx for understanding rm_work | 16:27 |
| *** akoneru has joined #openstack-barbican | 16:27 | |
| rm_work | priorities :P | 16:27 |
| alee | SheenaG1, chellygel - ok - its just going to be tricksy .. | 16:28 |
| chellygel | alee, woodster_, SheenaG1 i am stepping away for lunch -- but lets have the conversation about this and the framework afterwards | 16:28 |
| rm_work | not sure if https://review.openstack.org/#/c/117404/ matters either since i dont know if the hacking upgradeis required for | 16:28 |
| rm_work | J3 either | 16:28 |
| SheenaG1 | chellygel, alee: i'll be here | 16:29 |
| *** chellygelly has joined #openstack-barbican | 16:29 | |
| chellygelly | I jumped on this name from my phone for qs | 16:32 |
| *** Guest22704 has joined #openstack-barbican | 16:37 | |
| redrobot | atiwari are you around? | 16:43 |
| atiwari | redrobot, yes | 16:43 |
| atiwari | whats up? | 16:44 |
| redrobot | atiwari is there any work outstanding for this BP https://blueprints.launchpad.net/barbican/+spec/api-orders-add-more-types ? | 16:44 |
| *** bdpayne_ has quit IRC | 16:44 | |
| redrobot | atiwari or has everything merged already? | 16:44 |
| atiwari | redrobot, not yet | 16:44 |
| redrobot | atiwari what are we missing? | 16:44 |
| atiwari | after https://review.openstack.org/#/c/111412/ | 16:45 |
| atiwari | I have to push one small cr for API side changes | 16:45 |
| redrobot | atiwari I see... that CR is not linked to the BP in question though. | 16:45 |
| atiwari | that will be small | 16:45 |
| redrobot | atiwari could you change the branch to bp/api-orders-add-more-types | 16:45 |
| redrobot | atiwari I'm trying to get Launchpad ready for j3 tomorrow | 16:46 |
| atiwari | ok | 16:46 |
| redrobot | it would be good for that CR to be linked to the BP in launchpad | 16:46 |
| atiwari | branch for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/111412/? | 16:46 |
| redrobot | atiwari yes, as I see it, the CRS linked to the launchpad BP are all closed | 16:46 |
| redrobot | atiwari see https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/api-orders-add-more-types,n,z | 16:47 |
| atiwari | as you know I had a big cr for all the work and then we split the in multiple crs | 16:47 |
| atiwari | ok | 16:47 |
| redrobot | atiwari yes, but it's good to have a consistent topic branch name | 16:48 |
| atiwari | redrobot, sure | 16:48 |
| redrobot | so that all the separate CRs are linked together in Launchpad | 16:48 |
| atiwari | let me fix that | 16:48 |
| redrobot | atiwari thanks! | 16:48 |
| atiwari | yrw | 16:48 |
| redrobot | atiwari any chance you can get the new patch up today? | 16:48 |
| redrobot | I'm hoping we can complete the BP before the j3 cutoff tomorrow | 16:49 |
| atiwari | j3 cutoff is tomorrow? | 16:49 |
| redrobot | j3 release is tomorrow, yes. It's also feature-freee | 16:49 |
| redrobot | *freeze | 16:49 |
| atiwari | let me see , actually I am blocked by https://review.openstack.org/#/c/111412/ | 16:50 |
| redrobot | we're already going to have to push reaperhulk's BP to rc1, so I'd like to get ths BP landed if we can | 16:50 |
| atiwari | but I will try | 16:50 |
| atiwari | ok, I will try my brst | 16:50 |
| redrobot | atiwari looksl ike that CR just needs workflow... I just rekicked Jenkins. I'll workflow if tests are ok. | 16:52 |
| redrobot | atiwari never mind, it needs a rebase. | 16:53 |
| openstackgerrit | Arvind Tiwari proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Reorganize code to use store crypto plug-in https://review.openstack.org/111412 | 16:53 |
| *** juantwo_ has joined #openstack-barbican | 16:54 | |
| atiwari | redrobot, just changed the topic | 16:54 |
| atiwari | looks ok? | 16:54 |
| *** juantwo_ has quit IRC | 16:54 | |
| *** juantwo has quit IRC | 16:55 | |
| *** juantwo has joined #openstack-barbican | 16:55 | |
| redrobot | atiwari yeah, topic looks good now. did you get a chance to rebase it as well? | 16:55 |
| atiwari | redrobot, can we make it land today | 16:56 |
| atiwari | ? | 16:56 |
| redrobot | atiwari sure, I can try poking people for reviews after Jenkins votes | 16:57 |
| atiwari | ok | 16:57 |
| redrobot | atiwari were you able to rebase onto master? | 16:58 |
| atiwari | I did I think | 16:58 |
| atiwari | redrobot, let me see if I need to do it agian | 16:59 |
| atiwari | 1 sec | 16:59 |
| atiwari | redrobot, Current branch bp/api-orders-add-more-types is up to date. | 16:59 |
| redrobot | atiwari awesome. hopefully Jenkins will be able to merge it just fine | 17:00 |
| *** dougwig_ is now known as dougwig | 17:00 | |
| *** rellerreller has quit IRC | 17:01 | |
| atiwari | redrobot, I will start my last cr on this soon, hope I will finish it soon | 17:02 |
| *** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 17:03 | |
| atiwari | redrobot, I had to remove some code from validator based on woodster_ feedback | 17:03 |
| *** paul_glass has joined #openstack-barbican | 17:03 | |
| *** bdpayne has joined #openstack-barbican | 17:08 | |
| *** bdpayne has quit IRC | 17:10 | |
| *** bdpayne has joined #openstack-barbican | 17:10 | |
| *** lisaclark1 has quit IRC | 17:15 | |
| *** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 17:19 | |
| openstackgerrit | Arvind Tiwari proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Add asymmtric order validator https://review.openstack.org/118697 | 17:19 |
| *** lisaclark1 has quit IRC | 17:19 | |
| woodster_ | alee, jaosorior: Can we come to a consensus on the remove 'config' param CR?: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/116387/ | 17:20 |
| jaosorior | woodster_, alee: well, I vote for a dictionary approach | 17:21 |
| *** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 17:22 | |
| alee | woodster_, jaosorior - I still believe the get_xxx_ apporach is better. I'd prefer not to rely on documentation - which tends to be the last thing created and can get out of sync etc. | 17:23 |
| woodster_ | alee, jaosorior: I favor the direct-function approach just because I misspel things like 'secretz' alot :) | 17:23 |
| rm_work | I think I may disagree with jaosorior personally and vote for the explicit function approach as well -- much easier for anything with intelli-sense capabilities like pycharm :P | 17:24 |
| jaosorior | seems to me like there will be a lot of code repetition | 17:24 |
| rm_work | err, rather not disagree personally with jaosorior :P I, personally, might disagree with jaosorior >_< | 17:24 |
| rm_work | I guess I agree with woodster_ / alee, for whatever my vote counts as :P | 17:25 |
| jaosorior | well, if people are more in favor of the direct-function approach, so be it | 17:26 |
| alee | jaosorior, yeah, but I dont forsee us having loads of repos. | 17:26 |
| woodster_ | I could add a private function that takes the global name (eg TENANT_SECRET_REPOSITORY) and the class (TenantSecretRepo) and does the if/create logic in one place. | 17:27 |
| jaosorior | well, if it reduces that much repetition it would be nice | 17:29 |
| *** lisaclark2 has joined #openstack-barbican | 17:33 | |
| *** lisaclark2 has quit IRC | 17:34 | |
| woodster_ | would reduce some...so that global statement would still be called, prior to calling that private function...still a bit of savings thought | 17:35 |
| *** lisaclark1 has quit IRC | 17:36 | |
| *** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 17:38 | |
| *** lisaclark1 has quit IRC | 17:38 | |
| *** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 17:39 | |
| *** chellygelly has quit IRC | 17:59 | |
| *** rellerreller has joined #openstack-barbican | 18:08 | |
| *** Guest22704 has quit IRC | 18:09 | |
| jvrbanac | woodster_, I added a couple small comments on your CR | 18:16 |
| woodster_ | alee: I replied to your comments in chellygel's CR: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/117386/4 | 18:21 |
| woodster_ | jvrbanac: thanks, I'll take a look | 18:21 |
| *** paul_glass has quit IRC | 18:22 | |
| *** Guest22704 has joined #openstack-barbican | 18:25 | |
| redrobot | woodster_ RE this BluePrint https://blueprints.launchpad.net/barbican/+spec/fix-version-api | 18:28 |
| redrobot | woodster_ was the BP concerned with also adding the MIME-Type versioning support | 18:29 |
| redrobot | woodster_ the description is kind of vague | 18:29 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: are you talking about Chad's LP blueprint description there? | 18:30 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: also, I think this missed the chop for Juno, and now a Kilo BP? | 18:31 |
| redrobot | woodster_ yeah, sorry saw John Wood as drafter and assumed you wrote the description | 18:31 |
| redrobot | woodster_ the BP is marked as done for juno-3 | 18:31 |
| redrobot | woodster_ but I think it needs to be changed to just dropping RBAC from the version resource | 18:32 |
| redrobot | since that's all teh work that was done | 18:32 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: on, got it. I was thinking it missed the blueprint deadline for some reason. | 18:33 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: The BP spec for this is here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/108163/1/specs/juno/fix-version-api.rst | 18:33 |
| woodster_ | redrobot this is the json-home BP | 18:33 |
| redrobot | woodster_ I see... So it's only partially implemented... I'd say we kick this to Kilo then. | 18:34 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: RBAC is dropped for the root-level version resource already | 18:34 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: yep move to Kilo, esp. since that specs BP is not merged yet :) | 18:35 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: so I'll put up a patch to move that spec RST to a 'kilo' folder (assuming that is official now?) | 18:35 |
| redrobot | yeah, I think we can start moving pending BluePrints to Kilo | 18:36 |
| *** lisaclark1 has quit IRC | 18:38 | |
| redrobot | I see where topic branch names matter now | 18:40 |
| redrobot | the CR's topic does not match the BP title, so they didn't get linked | 18:41 |
| *** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 18:43 | |
| *** lisaclark1 has quit IRC | 18:44 | |
| *** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 18:47 | |
| woodster_ | redrobot, jvrbanac: I added a cover comment and in-module one regarding your comments: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/115301 | 18:49 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: so the 'Implements: blueprint fix-version-api | 18:49 |
| woodster_ | ' in the comment doesn't link this? | 18:49 |
| jvrbanac | woodster_, what is the desired outcome of that test? | 18:51 |
| redrobot | woodster_ not sure... maybe a combination of the two? | 18:51 |
| redrobot | woodster_ actually, Implements: xxx in the commit message gives a link to a multi-project view in Launchpad | 18:52 |
| redrobot | the topic branch when set to bp/name-of-bp adds a comment to the BP with the url to the CR | 18:53 |
| redrobot | the url comments are super useful when trying to figure out how many CRs have been submitted for a particualr BP | 18:53 |
| redrobot | the commit message is useful for cross-project blueprints, I suppose? | 18:54 |
| redrobot | ie, a BP that goes into both server and client. | 18:54 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: The problem with keying to the actual topic branch is that blueprints with multiple steps/CRs cannot be done at the same time, or be dependent on each other I'd think? | 18:59 |
| openstackgerrit | Chelsea Winfree proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Adding initial update logic for orders https://review.openstack.org/117386 | 19:00 |
| chellygel | alee, : ^ | 19:00 |
| chellygel | alee, please look when you get the chance today :D | 19:00 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: I'm used to a workflow where I match one topic branch to CR. I don't think I can do that if the topic branch matter for all CRs related to a blueprint. | 19:01 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: it would be nice if bp/myblueprintname also matched to bp/myblueprintname-2 :) | 19:01 |
| redrobot | woodster_ hehe... that'd be nice | 19:01 |
| redrobot | woodster_ unfortunately, it doesn't seem Gerrit->Launchpad was wired that way | 19:02 |
| redrobot | it should be possible to keep dependent crs in the same branch, it does get tricky if you're constantly updating patches for parents though | 19:02 |
| *** paul_glass has joined #openstack-barbican | 19:02 | |
| *** rellerreller has quit IRC | 19:03 | |
| woodster_ | redrobot: to me, that makes the blueprints much less useful...they are story level rather than epic level. Trying to manage stories with the specs repo approach is not near as helpful...we | 19:03 |
| woodster_ | 'd really take forever to get work approved | 19:03 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: s/they are story level/they would become story level/ | 19:04 |
| redrobot | woodster_ I'm not sure I understand your concern... it really just boils down to making sure you have the correct topic branch name for the CR you're submitting. | 19:04 |
| redrobot | when you submit it | 19:04 |
| redrobot | it doesn't necessarily mean you have to change your workflow, but you do have to juggle branches a little more | 19:05 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: If I have a blueprint that have 5 work items on it, that translate into 5 separate CRs worth of effort, then I can only work on one of them at a time...just one topic branch I can use for them | 19:05 |
| redrobot | woodster_ not necessarily. you can have 5 commits in the same topic branch... each will depend on the previous | 19:06 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: so the blueprint has to be at the CR level | 19:06 |
| redrobot | woodster_ the way I like to think about branches are just labels on a particular commit | 19:06 |
| redrobot | if you feel that labeling the 5 commits individually works for you, then that's great. but you'll have to juggle the "bp/my-name" tag to be the active tag when you submit a cr | 19:07 |
| redrobot | definitely not the best approach, but I think it does have some benefits | 19:08 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: that seems like an error-prone workflow, but would like to see that in operation. | 19:08 |
| redrobot | woodster_ it enables views like this in gerrit: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/api-orders-add-more-types,n,z | 19:09 |
| redrobot | woodster_ so we can easily see there's been 6 CRs related to the bp in question | 19:10 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: the Implements reference in the commit message should have allowed that linkage without need to change my git workflow. :\ Oh well.... | 19:11 |
| jvrbanac | woodster_, I'm not sure I understand your reply comment. | 19:11 |
| jvrbanac | woodster_, shouldn't there be something to assert against for those tests? | 19:12 |
| jvrbanac | even that a method was called or something? | 19:12 |
| woodster_ | jvrbanac: the cert event plugin does not raise exceptions, nor should it....it just reports that an event happened | 19:12 |
| jvrbanac | woodster_, ok, then shouldn't we have a assertion that makes sure the report happens or whatever | 19:13 |
| woodster_ | jvrbanac: the event methods don't report anything, just log. It could be good to check that logging happened though, but we haven't been doing that so far. | 19:13 |
| jvrbanac | woodster_, my concern is that these tests push up false coverage numbers due to the code just being hit, but nothing asserted | 19:14 |
| woodster_ | jvrbanac: are you thinking a log patch on this, and then verify the specific log message was written? | 19:14 |
| *** lisaclark1 has quit IRC | 19:16 | |
| jvrbanac | woodster_, I guess the SimpleCertificateEventPlugin doesn't do jack does it | 19:16 |
| *** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 19:17 | |
| jvrbanac | woodster_, I'm not a fan of patching fields that utilize gettext, because the tests will break in some CI environments | 19:18 |
| jvrbanac | woodster_, perhaps we just need a comment explaining what's going on here. | 19:19 |
| woodster_ | jvrbanac: well, *not* raising an exception when it isn't supposed to is good to know. :) But verifying a specific log message was written is better. That does raise issues as we haven't been doing LOG-verification testing so far. I think we can only reliably test that the LOG.info() method was called, as I18n will provide a different actual string depending | 19:20 |
| woodster_ | on the locale the tests are run in. | 19:20 |
| jvrbanac | woodster_, yeah. I'm thinking the comment is the best way to go here. Otherwise it raises red flags for people browsing through the code. | 19:22 |
| woodster_ | jvrbanac: will, do I'll add a comment for now. | 19:22 |
| woodster_ | alee: I'll add dogtag to setup.cfg in that CR | 19:24 |
| alee | woodster_, cool- thanks! | 19:24 |
| alee | woodster_, looking at your responses in the update CR | 19:25 |
| woodster_ | alee: So this?: dogtag = barbican.plugin.dogtag:DogtagCAPlugin | 19:28 |
| alee | woodster_, I think so -- looking | 19:29 |
| alee | woodster_, sound right to me - thanks! | 19:30 |
| woodster_ | alee: cool, will put up shortly | 19:31 |
| alee | thanks | 19:31 |
| woodster_ | jvrbanac: So John, would a comment such as this work?: Test that eventing plugin method does not have side effects such as raising exceptions | 19:32 |
| jvrbanac | yeah | 19:32 |
| woodster_ | jvrbanac: cool, thanks | 19:33 |
| openstackgerrit | John Wood proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Add initial files for certificate event handling https://review.openstack.org/115301 | 19:36 |
| *** lisaclark1 has quit IRC | 19:45 | |
| alee | woodster_, just responded to your comment in update CR | 19:48 |
| *** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 19:49 | |
| openstackgerrit | John Wood proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Remove config parameter from secret_store.py interface https://review.openstack.org/116387 | 19:52 |
| woodster_ | jaosorior, jvrbanac, rm_work: ^^^^ That CR blends the approaches we've discussed, please let me know if that makes sense though | 19:53 |
| jaosorior | Sure thing mr. woodster_ , I'll check it tomorrow morning. Have a good days guys! Heading off | 19:54 |
| chellygel | alee, in response to your comment on the CR -- what is "bad data" to dog tag? | 19:54 |
| chellygel | alee, according to symantec -- we would cancel the PENDING orders after 21 days, if no change is made | 19:55 |
| woodster_ | jaosorior: I think we are trying to land that CR today hopefully :) I think it is close enough to what you want to land though:) | 19:55 |
| chellygel | alee, if a client does not update their approver e-mail or contact information before that 21 day period, it would switch the flag to DONE after a check status -- which would show as canceled | 19:56 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: will do...need to clear out my old branch of that name first...will do after a quick bite (late lunch).... | 19:56 |
| chellygel | alee, s/client/customer/g haha | 19:57 |
| alee | chellygel, bad data would include for instance not including a required input -- like a csr | 19:57 |
| chellygel | alee, wouldn't that be validated before even reacfhing the plugin though? | 19:57 |
| alee | chellygel, that depends on what validations we put in there. | 19:58 |
| alee | chellygel, when we have a common api, we will be able to do some vailidations | 19:58 |
| alee | but in general dogtag offers a wide range of certifcates that can be requested | 19:59 |
| alee | including certiifcate profiles that can be customized however you want | 19:59 |
| alee | we will never be able to do all validations on the barbican side | 19:59 |
| chellygel | alee, for a symantec order we require a CSR, Approver Email, & Contact info (business information & administrator information) | 20:00 |
| chellygel | it seems though, for something like a CSR, that is needed before you can ever get a certificate in any instance though, right? | 20:00 |
| alee | chellygel, thats for just one type of certificate -- I suspect there are many others possible | 20:00 |
| alee | and the symantec admin may choose to rerquire something else. | 20:01 |
| chellygel | can you have a certificate without a CSR? | 20:01 |
| alee | chellygel, I was using that as an example .. there may be other required fields | 20:01 |
| chellygel | sure, when you said other cert types i was confused ! hah, i actually googled it >_> | 20:02 |
| alee | chellygel, there are for example different versions of csr's .. pkcs10, crmf .. | 20:02 |
| alee | and with dogtag, I can make the request as an agent and get it automatically approved -- which means errors can be found in processing | 20:03 |
| chellygel | would it be acceptable then for barbican to have a cancel method that is time based? to prevent pending orders from hanging? | 20:03 |
| alee | like fields in my csr that might be wrong | 20:04 |
| alee | key size too small | 20:04 |
| alee | subject dn not following requirements | 20:04 |
| chellygel | kicking the status to error, right? | 20:04 |
| alee | any of the myriad reasons a CA admin might reject a csr | 20:04 |
| alee | chellygel, I dont think thats a barbican policy decision | 20:05 |
| chellygel | i was thinking something configurable, ig uess? | 20:05 |
| alee | right now - it kicks it to error -- but I'm ok with that. | 20:05 |
| chellygel | as a default, if that makes sense? | 20:05 |
| alee | chellygel, I think its just better not to leave it in PENDING state. | 20:06 |
| alee | or call it PENDING_CLIENT if you like .. | 20:06 |
| chellygel | but would dogtag choose which state to put it to? | 20:06 |
| chellygel | so for your short orders it would choose ERROR rather than pending? | 20:07 |
| alee | dogtag will return REJECTED, and the dogtag plugin would return DATA_INVALID to barbican-core | 20:07 |
| alee | right now, barbican-core throws an exception - which will kick it to ERROR state. | 20:08 |
| alee | but we can change that -- what to do with that is exactly what we are trying to decide. | 20:08 |
| chellygel | i see, thank you :) | 20:10 |
| redrobot | atiwari https://review.openstack.org/#/c/111412/ is on the way to be merged. Was there one more CR for this Blueprint? | 20:12 |
| atiwari | yes | 20:12 |
| atiwari | redrobot, as I told you need to push one more | 20:12 |
| atiwari | working on it | 20:12 |
| atiwari | redrobot, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/118697/ placeholder | 20:13 |
| atiwari | :) | 20:13 |
| redrobot | atiwari ok, that's what I thought you said. | 20:13 |
| redrobot | atiwari oh, awesome! thanks for that. | 20:13 |
| woodster_ | alee: I think the PENDING to hold the order state while all the CA/client back and forth goes on should be workable. What is missing is the sub-status concept. So raising exceptions should indicate an order is fatally in error...can't recover, nothing can be done about that by either the client directly, or by the client talking to the CA talking (via | 20:13 |
| woodster_ | polling) to Barbican. Nothing. | 20:13 |
| redrobot | atiwari can you change the topic so that it matches the rest of the CRs? | 20:13 |
| atiwari | sure | 20:14 |
| atiwari | I will do that soon | 20:14 |
| redrobot | atiwari sounds good. | 20:14 |
| alee | woodster_, so no love for PENDING_CLIENT? | 20:16 |
| alee | woodster_, if we're going with that, then we need to change the code that currently raises an exception when the client data is bad. | 20:17 |
| alee | woodster_, I'm ok with ERROR being a terminal state. but I think it would be good to note the distinction between waiting for the server and waiting for the client. | 20:19 |
| woodster_ | alee, chellygel: so the PENDING, ACTIVE, ERROR drives asynchronous client/server behaviors. Obviously more useful for generating keys (relatively short time period) than working CA for certs, but the same interaction modes. Adding new states for the long-time-period flows would start to muddy up the short-time flows IMHO. | 20:19 |
| alee | woodster_, the distinction is not the short/long term flows. The distinction is that now you can update orders. | 20:21 |
| woodster_ | alee: well, the waiting process isn't that cut and dry from my understanding....Barbican might think that that client data issue problem with the CA (that issues an event back to the client) would result (eventually) in the client sending a corrective update. However, that same client might choose to fix the issue directly with the CA, in which case Barbican | 20:21 |
| woodster_ | isn't update until it polls the CA. | 20:21 |
| alee | woodster_, all previous orders were not update-able -- there was no PENDING_CLIENT state. | 20:22 |
| *** lisaclark1 has quit IRC | 20:22 | |
| alee | woodster_, in previous flows, if there was an error, we returned an error state and that was it. You needed to fix and submit a new order. | 20:24 |
| woodster_ | alee, chellygel: well, I think if we have a sub-status that is specific to the order type at hand, and still keep the overall status as the simple three, we can have it both ways. After all, something like PENDING_CLIENT is more specific to the cert gen process at this point, so why not just segregate that status to a more fine grained attribute like | 20:24 |
| woodster_ | sub-status? Now business logic specific to that process can heppen on its on | 20:24 |
| alee | woodster_, ok - I guess it can be done as a sub-status | 20:28 |
| alee | chellygel, woodster_ you'll need to change the existing code to do that then ie. in issue_certificate and check_certificate | 20:29 |
| openstackgerrit | Jeremy Stanley proposed a change to openstack/kite: Work toward Python 3.4 support and testing https://review.openstack.org/118780 | 20:29 |
| woodster_ | alee: that would be my preference for now, but could be talked out of it in Paris. :) | 20:30 |
| openstackgerrit | Jeremy Stanley proposed a change to openstack/python-barbicanclient: Work toward Python 3.4 support and testing https://review.openstack.org/118798 | 20:30 |
| alee | woodster_, I'll be sure to ply you with lots of wine before broaching the subject | 20:30 |
| openstackgerrit | Jeremy Stanley proposed a change to openstack/python-kiteclient: Work toward Python 3.4 support and testing https://review.openstack.org/118803 | 20:30 |
| chellygel | alee, wait a minute, i'll be his sober reminder | 20:31 |
| chellygel | alee, you'll have to bring double the wine :P | 20:31 |
| alee | woodster_, chellygel - fortunately they seem to have a fair amout of wine in Paris .. | 20:31 |
| chellygel | haha i'll hold you to that! | 20:32 |
| alee | woodster_, chellygel - so you'll be changing the existing code in your cr? | 20:32 |
| openstackgerrit | A change was merged to openstack/barbican: Reorganize code to use store crypto plug-in https://review.openstack.org/111412 | 20:32 |
| alee | we really do need substatus soon to make sense of all of this. | 20:32 |
| *** Guest22704 has quit IRC | 20:33 | |
| *** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 20:33 | |
| *** lisaclark1 has quit IRC | 20:34 | |
| woodster_ | alee: would it make sense to hold off those changes in this CR until the sub-status CR later? I'm concerned about landing this CR as a placeholder for the /orders PUT, and that cert eventing CR today...to make those features 'official' for J3. Adding sub-status after that shouldn't require a change to plugin contracts, so should be easier to get in for final | 20:35 |
| woodster_ | Juno. | 20:35 |
| alee | woodster_, thats fine. | 20:35 |
| alee | chellygel, there are just a few small changes there then .. | 20:36 |
| *** akoneru is now known as akoneru_lunch | 20:42 | |
| *** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 20:44 | |
| *** lisaclark1 has quit IRC | 20:46 | |
| *** Guest22704 has joined #openstack-barbican | 20:46 | |
| *** kebray has joined #openstack-barbican | 20:48 | |
| chellygel | i apologize alee, im missing context -- which changes? | 20:50 |
| chellygel | woodster_, has stepped away | 20:50 |
| alee | chellygel, see my comments in your latest patch | 20:51 |
| *** juantwo has quit IRC | 20:58 | |
| openstackgerrit | Arvind Tiwari proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Add asymmtric order validator https://review.openstack.org/118697 | 21:01 |
| *** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 21:03 | |
| alee | chellygel, just commented back | 21:04 |
| woodster_ | redrobot, jvrbanac, reaperhulk: Any core reviewers out there that can take a look at this?: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/116387/ | 21:04 |
| woodster_ | alee: thanks for the review btw | 21:04 |
| redrobot | woodster_ looking | 21:05 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: will change the topic branch shortly btw | 21:05 |
| openstackgerrit | Chelsea Winfree proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Adding initial update logic for orders https://review.openstack.org/117386 | 21:12 |
| chellygel | alee, woodster_ ^ | 21:15 |
| alee | chellygel, actually - why do you even read the order_type from the request? | 21:18 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: I think I changed that topic branch now: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/115301 | 21:20 |
| alee | chellygel, you dont actually use it anywhere | 21:20 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: (I used the gerrit ui to do it) | 21:20 |
| woodster_ | alee: it is only used to enforce that the client is using the same type as the original order | 21:21 |
| alee | chellygel, woodster_ yeah - but that check isn't there. | 21:22 |
| redrobot | woodster_ looks fine to me now... you'll have to show me how to do that via UI | 21:22 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: There is a wee little icon to the right of the 'Topic <topic branch name>' line there | 21:24 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: looks like only the author can change it that way | 21:24 |
| alee | woodster_, chellygel - so you probably need to get the order type from the request, get the order_model , confirm that they match, confirm that update is supported for that type, load the body and run the validator .. | 21:25 |
| redrobot | woodster_ nice! so you don't have to juggle branches | 21:25 |
| alee | in that order .. | 21:25 |
| alee | (I mean in that sequence ..) | 21:25 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: yeah, in fact gerrit/git complained because no change were being submitted: ! [remote rejected] HEAD -> refs/publish/master/bp/called (no new changes) | 21:26 |
| redrobot | I'm definitely going to start harrassing people about proper topic branch names then | 21:27 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: for sure. Not sure what happens if I submit a patch with the old/wrong topic branch, but we should always be able to modify after the fact | 21:28 |
| chellygel | adding the comparison goes back to your comment about adding a 400 with changing the type, yes? | 21:29 |
| alee | chellygel, right there are two different checks here | 21:30 |
| alee | chellygel, one is that the types in the request and the db match | 21:30 |
| alee | db = order_model | 21:30 |
| alee | chellygel, the other is that the order type supports update | 21:30 |
| alee | I think you want two different checks and two different exceptions | 21:31 |
| alee | both 400 | 21:31 |
| alee | but you also want to be sure to run the right validator -- so I think you need to change the logic flow to what I mention above | 21:32 |
| chellygel | is order_cannot_update_type a good name for the mentioned error? | 21:33 |
| openstackgerrit | A change was merged to openstack/barbican: Remove some inline if/else statements https://review.openstack.org/118603 | 21:33 |
| chellygel | alee, ^ | 21:35 |
| alee | maybe order_cannot_modify_order_type ? | 21:36 |
| chellygel | k | 21:37 |
| openstackgerrit | Chelsea Winfree proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Adding initial update logic for orders https://review.openstack.org/117386 | 21:41 |
| chellygel | i should change the message too | 21:43 |
| chellygel | derp. | 21:43 |
| chellygel | lemme do that | 21:43 |
| chellygel | s/update/modify/g | 21:43 |
| openstackgerrit | Chelsea Winfree proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Adding initial update logic for orders https://review.openstack.org/117386 | 21:44 |
| *** akoneru_lunch is now known as akoneru | 21:46 | |
| *** paul_glass has quit IRC | 21:49 | |
| *** SheenaG1 has quit IRC | 21:51 | |
| *** rm_work has quit IRC | 21:54 | |
| redrobot | hockeynut ping | 21:58 |
| *** rm_work|away has joined #openstack-barbican | 22:01 | |
| *** rm_work|away is now known as rm_work | 22:01 | |
| *** rm_work has joined #openstack-barbican | 22:01 | |
| *** lisaclark1 has quit IRC | 22:01 | |
| *** jaosorior has quit IRC | 22:02 | |
| *** alee is now known as alee_dinner | 22:03 | |
| *** jorge_munoz has joined #openstack-barbican | 22:07 | |
| chellygel | thanks alee_dinner ! I really appreciate you helping me :) | 22:09 |
| *** nkinder has quit IRC | 22:10 | |
| *** openstack has joined #openstack-barbican | 22:10 | |
| woodster_ | any core devs out there for this CR: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/115301/ | 22:16 |
| woodster_ | ? | 22:16 |
| woodster_ | just needs workflow +1 | 22:16 |
| woodster_ | redrobot: can you spare a +1 bruthah? | 22:19 |
| woodster_ | jvrbanac, reaperhulk: ^^^ | 22:21 |
| *** nkinder has joined #openstack-barbican | 22:26 | |
| *** juantwo has joined #openstack-barbican | 22:47 | |
| *** juantwo has quit IRC | 22:47 | |
| *** juantwo has joined #openstack-barbican | 22:47 | |
| *** nkinder has quit IRC | 22:53 | |
| *** SheenaG1 has joined #openstack-barbican | 22:54 | |
| *** kebray has quit IRC | 22:55 | |
| *** SheenaG11 has joined #openstack-barbican | 22:56 | |
| *** SheenaG1 has quit IRC | 22:58 | |
| *** gyee has quit IRC | 22:59 | |
| *** openstackstatus has quit IRC | 23:19 | |
| *** openstackstatus has joined #openstack-barbican | 23:19 | |
| *** ChanServ sets mode: +v openstackstatus | 23:19 | |
| openstackgerrit | Arvind Tiwari proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Add asymmtric order validator https://review.openstack.org/118697 | 23:24 |
| atiwari | redrobot, yt? | 23:28 |
| *** atiwari has quit IRC | 23:34 | |
| *** Guest22704 has quit IRC | 23:50 | |
| *** nkinder has joined #openstack-barbican | 23:51 | |
| openstackgerrit | Jorge Munoz proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Adding missing unit test on queue server tasks https://review.openstack.org/118928 | 23:57 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!