Hi Pierre,
Thanks for the pointer. I think part of the problem is cognitive
dissonance attacking me from a previous life, where 'PR' meant 'problem
resolution'. I don't do much git at all, so while I understand pull
request, the abbreviation of PR wasn't quite getting through.
Neil Gilmore
grammatech.com
On 12/22/2016 2:27 PM, Pierre Tardy wrote:
PR means pull request
This is the basic howto for our contribution.
http://trac.buildbot.net/wiki/SubmittingPatches
Have great holidays!
Pierre
Le jeu. 22 déc. 2016 à 21:20, Neil Gilmore <ngilm...@grammatech.com
<mailto:ngilm...@grammatech.com>> a écrit :
Hi Pierre,
Thanks for the reply.
I'll have a look at the worker to see what it's doing, then see
what I can do in my code. Mostly, I just needed a direction to go,
and there were several available.
I think I asked about PR before, as I'm not familiar with the
acronym, but I don't recall getting an answer. Any pointer would
be helpful.
I did get the OK from on high to share the code back. I wouldn't
say it's finished by any means, but all the bones are there. I'm
not going to be around much until after New Year's, though.
Neil Gilmore
grammatech.com <http://grammatech.com>
On 12/22/2016 2:11 PM, Pierre Tardy wrote:
I think indeed, this is such a case were you would need to
actually store some part of the config in the object inside
checkConfig.
Like you already pointed out there are already some of the
objects (if I recall correctly the worker are doing that) that
are doing that for the same reason.
Looks like you are at the point were you could start sharing the
code. I think it would be easier to discuss this in a PR even if
this is not fully finished.
Pierre
Le jeu. 22 déc. 2016 à 17:08, Neil Gilmore
<ngilm...@grammatech.com <mailto:ngilm...@grammatech.com>> a écrit :
Good morning everyone,
As you remember, we're having a lot of trouble related to
schedulers in
0.9.X not being reconfigurable in any meaningful sense of the
word. I
got the go-ahead to try to make a patch for this.
Unfortunately, I've
run into a fairly serious problem.
The advice I was given was (in a nutshell) to take the code
in the
various schedulers' __init__ functions, and spread it into 2
functions.
checkConfig() would check its arguments for validity, and
reconfigService() would put them into the instance. Sure,
there were
some various snags at first. Partly, I'm not used to Python's
argument-passing model. Partly, figuring out which arguments
needed to
get passed where. Partly, figuring out that name should only
exist in
the __init__'s, not the checkConfig's, etc.
What happens when we create a scheduler is this:
The scheduler's __init__ function is called. This calls it's base
class's __init__, and so on, up to BuildbotService.__init__.
Note that
all arguments must be preserved during these calls. You'll
see why.
BuildbotService.__init__ calls checkConfig. Now, this call
goes to the
scheduler's checkConfig, which checks its own specific
arguments, then
passes everything else up to it's base class's checkConfig,
and so on.
Everything,s great, right? Wrong...
At this point, we have validated everything. But only the
name is in the
instance. Because everything else is supposed to get assigned in
reconfigService.
But in between __init__ and reconfigService, other things
happen. Such
as check_single_master() (at least for single master
systems). That
attempts to check the builder names in the schedulers vs. the
builders'
names in the config. Naturally, this fails because the
builder names
haven't been put into the schedulers yet. And it would go on
to check
other things that probably fail, too.
I'm not sure how to resolve this. The hacktastic way would be
to just
figure out what might ever get checked and put that back into
__init__.
But that's not very clean. The proper way would be to figure
out how to
make a scheduler reconcile it's own builderNames, et al. with the
builders in the config. But I'd need to be able to get the
config being
checked, and I haven't figured out how to do that. There's
other checks
that go between items like this that I'd need to do, too.
Really, I'm just uncomfortable having this task spread out
into other
areas of buildbot.
Or I just go back to our 80% solution and hack checkConfig...
Neil Gilmore
grammatech.com <http://grammatech.com>
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@buildbot.net <mailto:users@buildbot.net>
https://lists.buildbot.net/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@buildbot.net <mailto:users@buildbot.net>
https://lists.buildbot.net/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@buildbot.net
https://lists.buildbot.net/mailman/listinfo/users
