Wednesday, 2014-09-03

*** nkinder has joined #openstack-barbican00:03
openstackgerritAdam Harwell proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Making a few MORE modules hacking 0.9.2 compliant
rm_workreaperhulk: actually fixed ANOTHER instance of the same issue... >_>00:05
rm_workthis 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_workalright bbl00:12
*** kebray has quit IRC00:19
*** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican00:31
openstackgerritChelsea Winfree proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Adding initial update logic for orders
*** lisaclark1 has quit IRC00:33
chellygelalee, 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 CR00:34
rm_you|?whew, home00:42
rm_you|chellygel: hadn't actually been home yet, landed at went to work >_<00:43
rm_you|*landed and00:43
chellygeloh damn!00:43
chellygelthats crazy00:43
openstackgerritA change was merged to openstack/barbican: Make a whole host of modules hacking 0.9.2 compliant
rm_you|side effect of being stingy with ETO :P00:44
rm_you|work from hotel room -> train to airport -> airport -> plane -> after landing00:44
rm_you|working remote can be exciting :P00:44
chellygeli agree, it definitely can be!00:47
chellygeli 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
*** gyee has quit IRC01:04
*** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican01:17
*** ayoung_ has joined #openstack-barbican01:26
*** juantwo_ has joined #openstack-barbican01:35
*** juantwo has quit IRC01:35
rm_you|heh yes01:57
*** lisaclark1 has quit IRC02:10
*** bdpayne has joined #openstack-barbican02:22
*** ayoung_ is now known as ayoung02:23
*** woodster has quit IRC02:45
*** bdpayne has quit IRC03:53
*** bdpayne has joined #openstack-barbican03:54
*** ajc_ has joined #openstack-barbican04:04
*** sld has joined #openstack-barbican04:41
*** bdpayne has quit IRC04:45
openstackgerritSteve Martinelli proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Move to oslotest
*** juantwo has joined #openstack-barbican04:55
*** juantwo has quit IRC04:56
*** juantwo_ has quit IRC04:59
*** jaosorior has joined #openstack-barbican05:01
*** kebray has joined #openstack-barbican05:02
*** kebray has quit IRC05:03
*** kebray has joined #openstack-barbican05:04
*** bdpayne has joined #openstack-barbican05:24
*** rm_mobile has joined #openstack-barbican05:39
rm_mobilejaosorior: hey05:39
rm_mobileI put in a CR05:40
jaosoriorI'll check it out when I get to the office :) I'm on the bus05:41
rm_mobileTrying to figure out what's with the py33 fail05:41
rm_mobileThat failure was happening locally too but I was leaving the office05:41
rm_mobileTestr errors out before tests even run05:41
rm_mobileI don't really know how testr works yet05:42
rm_mobilePoint being, ignore the fail for now, the code should be good05:42
rm_mobileOr, the approach at least is solid I think05:43
jaosoriorI'll see if I can figure it out05:43
rm_mobileK, it's probably something dumb that I missed05:44
rm_mobileI was about to sleep but I figured you might be on around now :P05:44
rm_mobileWanted to give you a heads up on that05:45
*** bdpayne has quit IRC06:02
rm_mobilejaosorior: where are you again?06:06
*** denis_makogon has quit IRC06:12
*** denis_makogon has joined #openstack-barbican06:12
jaosoriorso it's 9:29 here06:29
rm_mobile1:30am here06:30
jaosoriortake me about 45 min to get ze office though06:30
rm_mobileI am somewhat used to working with Finns though, did a fair bit of work with Nokia a while ago06:31
rm_mobileSo I'm used to this particular time differential06:31
jaosoriordid you happen to work in the meego/maemo project?06:32
rm_mobileI guess I'll catch you in the morning possibly06:32
jaosoriorlol, nice06:32
jaosoriorI have a bunch of friends and colleagues that worked there06:32
jaosoriorthey worked there at some point06:32
rm_mobileErr, still miss maemo06:32
jaosoriornow they're either here, or in some other company06:32
rm_mobileRight, not many work there anymore :(06:33
jaosoriorwell, since they got bought by some ominous company, things got from bad to horrible06:33
jaosoriorbut well, it happens06:33
jaosoriorby the way, the p33 tests seem to fail from import errors or something, dafuq O_o06:33
rm_mobileI remember the Elopocalypse06:34
rm_mobileInteresting, how do you see that?06:34
jaosoriorwell, it says import errors there06:34
jaosoriormight 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 message06:35
jaosorioranother option is for you to run nosetests (since it should probably work) manually, while having the p33 env activated06:39
jaosoriorwell, I have some questions about your code, but I guess I'll leave them as comments06:40
rm_mobileThat works06:43
rm_mobileAnything really specific I could clarify now?06:43
jaosoriorcomments given06:47
jaosoriorI am yet to figure out why it fails for py33 though06:47
rm_mobileFor the first thing, yeah, I was trying to maintain the recursive display functionality06:48
rm_mobileFrom my original CR06:48
rm_mobileBut yes, it gets quite verbose06:48
rm_mobileIf people think it's OK just to show refs, I'm good with that06:49
rm_mobileAs to the second comment, I'm still just a journeyman pythoneer06:50
rm_mobileI've seen mixins before but not 100% on how they work exactly06:50
rm_mobileI'll look at that tomorrow06:50
jaosoriorwell, it's not necessarily a python thing06:51
jaosorioryou can do it c++ also (though it can get super confusing if not using boost and/or c++11)06:51
rm_mobileDoing it that way seemed like the least code and simultaneously the most flexible06:51
jaosoriorbut anyway, this self._get_formatted_data(self) is quite a confusing part06:51
rm_mobileYeah it's...06:51
jaosoriorif you could clarify that in the documentation, or figure out another approach, it would be better06:51
rm_mobileI thought so too but there is a reason06:51
rm_mobileI will look again at trying to fix that06:52
rm_mobileI think the problem is partly because I am sharing that code with Cliff, which expects things a certain way06:53
jaosoriorthen again, I think the href approach is better, to keep things from getting too verbose06:53
rm_mobileAnd I am fine with doing hrefs for nested objects06:55
rm_mobileIt's really a fairly minor thing, these string representations :006:56
rm_mobileCompared to having a working client06:56
rm_mobileHard to have particularly strong feelings when 90% of their use will probably be for debug messages, lol06:56
rm_mobileIf I had my other laptop I'd just fix it now06:57
rm_mobileI honestly feel like I work best from around midnight to 4am06:57
rm_mobileBut people on my team like to see me during their waking hours :P06:58
jaosoriorhahaha I know, I get the same sometimes :P07:00
rm_mobileFinally going to sleep. Night (morning)!07:06
*** rm_mobile has quit IRC07:06
*** kebray has quit IRC08:40
*** jraim_ has quit IRC11:03
*** xaeth has quit IRC11:03
*** jraim__ has joined #openstack-barbican11:06
*** dolphm has quit IRC11:06
*** SheenaG1 has joined #openstack-barbican11:07
openstackgerritJuan Antonio Osorio Robles proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Remove some inline if/else statements
*** xaeth has joined #openstack-barbican11:08
*** dolphm has joined #openstack-barbican11:11
*** SheenaG1 has quit IRC11:15
*** SheenaG1 has joined #openstack-barbican11:19
*** juantwo has joined #openstack-barbican11:56
chellygelmorning guys, afternoon jaosorior !11:57
jaosoriorchellygel: Terve :)11:57
chellygelooh, what does that mean?11:57
jaosoriorhi or hello -> Terve/moi/hei/morro11:58
*** juantwo has quit IRC12:06
*** juantwo has joined #openstack-barbican12:06
jaosorioranyway, how's it going over there?12:27
openstackgerritTim Kelsey proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Adding a plugin to interact with HP Atalla ESKM
chellygelits going well!12:29
chellygelfeel like i have 100 things going on -- so just trying to keep up with that :)12:30
chellygelhow about you?12:30
jaosoriortoo many meetings going on :(12:33
jaosoriorbut hopefully I can squeeze some time in to do some coding :)12:34
openstackgerritJuan Antonio Osorio Robles proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Replace explicit assertion for function
*** ajc_ has quit IRC12:52
openstackgerritJuan Antonio Osorio Robles proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Remove some inline if/else statements
*** nkinder has quit IRC13:11
*** woodster_ has joined #openstack-barbican13:12
*** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican13:28
*** lisaclark1 has quit IRC13:28
*** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican13:31
jaosorioruhm... so recheck no bug didn't retrigger the tests, did something change?13:39
*** ametts has joined #openstack-barbican13:45
*** lisaclark1 has quit IRC13:48
*** rellerreller has joined #openstack-barbican13:50
*** nkinder has joined #openstack-barbican13:58
*** rm_work is now known as rm_work|away14:03
*** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican14:08
openstackgerritJuan Antonio Osorio Robles proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Remove some inline if/else statements
*** kebray has joined #openstack-barbican14:12
*** kebray has quit IRC14:13
*** kebray has joined #openstack-barbican14:13
openstackgerritJohn Wood proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Add initial files for certificate event handling
jvrbanacjaosorior, ?14:18
jaosoriorNevermind :P14:19
jvrbanacjaosorior, I know they collapsed the CI messages, so sometimes you have to just go look at zuul for your change number14:19
jaosoriorYeah, that confused me,  but now I get it14:20
woodster_alee, arunkant: I've updated the certificate CR per your comments:
*** SheenaG1 has quit IRC14:25
*** paul_glass has joined #openstack-barbican14:27
*** paul_glass has quit IRC14:28
*** paul_glass has joined #openstack-barbican14:28
chellygelalee, please review the new patch when you can!
aleewoodster_, chellygel - will look shortly14:35
chellygelthanks alee :) i appreciate your help!14:47
*** atiwari has joined #openstack-barbican14:47
*** SheenaG1 has joined #openstack-barbican14:53
*** SheenaG1 has quit IRC14:57
*** SheenaG1 has joined #openstack-barbican14:59
aleewoodster_, ping15:04
*** paul_glass1 has joined #openstack-barbican15:04
*** paul_glass has quit IRC15:04
aleewoodster_, looking at your events CR.  trying to understand why barbican/common/ is showing up -- with no changes?15:05
chellygelalee, that is weird, right? i see in patch one he had a backslash -- but then it went back to base after that patch15:07
*** lisaclark2 has joined #openstack-barbican15:10
*** lisaclark1 has quit IRC15:12
*** bdpayne has joined #openstack-barbican15:13
woodster_alee, chellygel: I had to move to common from api, so I could use it to convert the order-id on the tasks/worker side to a HATEOS ref15:27
aleewoodster_, right - I'm just tring to understand why its showing up in gerrit with "No changes"15:28
woodster_...then that required modifying several that string you pull on a sweater15:28
openstackgerritArvind Tiwari proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Reorganize code to use store crypto plug-in
woodster_alee: it has an 'R' by it...maybe replace?  I didn't modify the contents of the file though15:29
*** lisaclark2 has quit IRC15:30
atiwarihockeynut, yt?15:31
aleewoodster_, right - I would think that it would show up as a deletion of hrefs from api and then addition to common15:31
aleeor something like that.15:32
hockeynutatiwari here15:32
atiwarisorry man, I was in wrong place :)15:32
*** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican15:32
hockeynuthappens to me all the time15:32
atiwariany ways I have addressed your comments in my new patch15:33
hockeynutthank you sir!15:33
atiwariexcept the on around \15:33
atiwarican we address that in separate cr?15:33
hockeynutthat's fine - there will be loads of fun when we update hacking15:33
aleewoodster_, did you do some kind of "git rename" or "git move" ?15:34
openstackgerritConstanze Kratel proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Updated dev guide to include feedback from previous tech review
aleewoodster_, or just git remove / git add?15:35
StanziI just submitted a new CR for the Barbican developer guide. Please review at:
aleewoodster_, its relevant because if there are no changes in the file, it would be nice to preserve git history15:36
woodster_alee, jaosorior, hockeynut: Please take another look at this CR when you can:
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!15:38
woodster_alee: would note that git notes it as: renamed:    barbican/api/controllers/ -> barbican/common/hrefs.py15:39
woodster_alee: I recall that git will do such a thing if the file name/content? is the same and just moved.15:39
aleewoodster_, and the R might mean "rename".  If you do a git log on the file do you see history?15:40
aleemight have to do a git log -f -- for follow ..15:40
aleegit log --follow15:41
woodster_alee: This shows me the history of the file, even before the move: git log --follow -p barbican/common/hrefs.py15:42
aleewoodster_, ok then we're good.15:43
woodster_alee: I would think that the history is indeed preserved, and the rename is ok to do then15:43
StanziI just submitted a new CR for the Barbican developer guide. Please review at:
*** Stanzi has joined #openstack-barbican15:53
StanziI just submitted a new CR for the Barbican developer guide. Please review at:
*** bdpayne has quit IRC15:57
*** bdpayne has joined #openstack-barbican15:59
redrobotso...  j3 is tomorrow16:01
redrobotwhat CRs are we looking to land today?16:02
chellygeli believe woodster_ and I are going to try to get the cert stuff in today -- if possible16:03
chellygelthe goal is before tomorrow anyway16:03
*** codekobe___ has joined #openstack-barbican16:04
*** paul_glass1 has quit IRC16:05
*** lisaclark1 has quit IRC16:07
*** codekobe__ has quit IRC16:08
*** erw has quit IRC16:08
*** jaosorior has quit IRC16:08
*** dougwig has quit IRC16:08
*** arunkant has quit IRC16:08
*** codekobe___ is now known as codekobe__16:08
*** arunkant has joined #openstack-barbican16:09
*** Stanzi has quit IRC16:09
*** erw_ has joined #openstack-barbican16:09
*** dougwig_ has joined #openstack-barbican16:10
*** jaosorior has joined #openstack-barbican16:10
*** kebray has quit IRC16:13
arunkantjaosorior, hockeynut, woodster_ , have addressed all concerns..can you review
chellygelalee, thanks for the review, good point w/ error state16:16
chellygeli also believe woodster_ wants to chat later this afternoon about handling the multiple requests -- we had a lengthy discussion yesterday16:17
chellygelalee, briefly we were discussing storing the requests elsewhere and sorting by time requested16:17
*** bdpayne_ has joined #openstack-barbican16:17
aleechellygel, I'll be interested in how we hope to handle that .. I think its going to be tricky.16:18
chellygelalee, yes, as we were tipping around in the discussion yesterday it started getting complicated for sure!16:18
chellygelalee, digging into the symantec side, we are mostly going to be concerned with updates to approver email and contact information -- CSR will not be edited16:19
chellygelalee, with that in mind -- we were discussing what logic flow would be needed to track the retry and stacking scenarios16:19
aleechellygel, 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-barbican16:20
*** bdpayne has quit IRC16:21
chellygelalee, woodster_ it wouldn't make sense to cancel the original order though -- just because the user mistyped the email :S16:21
aleechellygel, woodster_  and if all you're doing is updating things like contact info etc., it hardly seems to justify the infrastructure.16:21
aleechellygel, why not?16:21
*** rm_work|away is now known as rm_work16:22
chellygelsending 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 done16:23
chellygelfor verifications ^16:24
*** Guest22704 has quit IRC16:24
SheenaG1alee: it's more confusing for the customer and reseller if we cancel16:24
SheenaG1alee: I've been manually processing certs with Symantec for 6 months and I almost never see a cert order get through successfully the first time16:25
chellygelalee,  in these instances, we may need to update the contact info of the organizational contact, their phone number, or an email16:26
rm_work would be nice, though i guess nt required today if everyone is in J3 mode16:26
SheenaG1thx for understanding rm_work16:27
*** akoneru has joined #openstack-barbican16:27
rm_workpriorities :P16:27
aleeSheenaG1, chellygel - ok - its just going to be tricksy ..16:28
chellygelalee, woodster_, SheenaG1 i am stepping away for lunch -- but lets have the conversation about this and the framework afterwards16:28
rm_worknot sure if matters either since i dont know if the hacking upgradeis required for16:28
rm_workJ3 either16:28
SheenaG1chellygel, alee: i'll be here16:29
*** chellygelly has joined #openstack-barbican16:29
chellygellyI jumped on this name from my phone for qs16:32
*** Guest22704 has joined #openstack-barbican16:37
redrobotatiwari are you around?16:43
atiwariredrobot, yes16:43
atiwariwhats up?16:44
redrobotatiwari is there any work outstanding for this BP ?16:44
*** bdpayne_ has quit IRC16:44
redrobotatiwari or has everything merged already?16:44
atiwariredrobot, not yet16:44
redrobotatiwari what are we missing?16:44
atiwariI have to push one small cr for API side changes16:45
redrobotatiwari I see... that CR is not linked to the BP in question though.16:45
atiwarithat will be small16:45
redrobotatiwari could you change the branch to bp/api-orders-add-more-types16:45
redrobotatiwari I'm trying to get Launchpad ready for j3 tomorrow16:46
redrobotit would be good for that CR to be linked to the BP in launchpad16:46
atiwaribranch for
redrobotatiwari yes, as I see it, the CRS linked to the launchpad BP are all closed16:46
redrobotatiwari see,n,z16:47
atiwarias you know I had a big cr for all the work and then we split the in multiple crs16:47
redrobotatiwari yes, but it's good to have a consistent topic branch name16:48
atiwariredrobot, sure16:48
redrobotso that all the separate CRs are linked together in Launchpad16:48
atiwarilet me fix that16:48
redrobotatiwari thanks!16:48
redrobotatiwari any chance you can get the new patch up today?16:48
redrobotI'm hoping we can complete the BP before the j3 cutoff tomorrow16:49
atiwarij3 cutoff is tomorrow?16:49
redrobotj3 release is tomorrow, yes.  It's also feature-freee16:49
atiwarilet me see , actually I am blocked by
redrobotwe're already going to have to push reaperhulk's BP to rc1, so I'd like to get ths BP landed if we can16:50
atiwaribut I will try16:50
atiwariok,  I will try my brst16:50
redrobotatiwari looksl ike that CR just needs workflow... I just rekicked Jenkins.  I'll workflow if tests are ok.16:52
redrobotatiwari never mind, it needs a rebase.16:53
openstackgerritArvind Tiwari proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Reorganize code to use store crypto plug-in
*** juantwo_ has joined #openstack-barbican16:54
atiwariredrobot, just changed the topic16:54
atiwarilooks ok?16:54
*** juantwo_ has quit IRC16:54
*** juantwo has quit IRC16:55
*** juantwo has joined #openstack-barbican16:55
redrobotatiwari yeah, topic looks good now.  did you get a chance to rebase it as well?16:55
atiwariredrobot, can we make it land today16:56
redrobotatiwari sure, I can try poking people for reviews after Jenkins votes16:57
redrobotatiwari were you able to rebase onto master?16:58
atiwariI did I think16:58
atiwariredrobot, let me see if I need to do it agian16:59
atiwari1 sec16:59
atiwariredrobot, Current branch bp/api-orders-add-more-types is up to date.16:59
redrobotatiwari awesome.  hopefully Jenkins will be able to merge it just fine17:00
*** dougwig_ is now known as dougwig17:00
*** rellerreller has quit IRC17:01
atiwariredrobot, I will start my last cr on this soon, hope I will finish it soon17:02
*** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican17:03
atiwariredrobot, I had to remove some code from validator based on woodster_ feedback17:03
*** paul_glass has joined #openstack-barbican17:03
*** bdpayne has joined #openstack-barbican17:08
*** bdpayne has quit IRC17:10
*** bdpayne has joined #openstack-barbican17:10
*** lisaclark1 has quit IRC17:15
*** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican17:19
openstackgerritArvind Tiwari proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Add asymmtric order validator
*** lisaclark1 has quit IRC17:19
woodster_alee, jaosorior: Can we come to a consensus on the remove 'config' param CR?:
jaosoriorwoodster_, alee: well, I vote for a dictionary approach17:21
*** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican17:22
aleewoodster_, 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_workI 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 :P17:24
jaosoriorseems to me like there will be a lot of code repetition17:24
rm_workerr, rather not disagree personally with jaosorior :P I, personally, might disagree with jaosorior  >_<17:24
rm_workI guess I agree with woodster_ / alee, for whatever my vote counts as :P17:25
jaosoriorwell, if people are more in favor of the direct-function approach, so be it17:26
aleejaosorior, 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
jaosoriorwell, if it reduces that much repetition it would be nice17:29
*** lisaclark2 has joined #openstack-barbican17:33
*** lisaclark2 has quit IRC17:34
woodster_would reduce that global statement would still be called, prior to calling that private function...still a bit of savings thought17:35
*** lisaclark1 has quit IRC17:36
*** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican17:38
*** lisaclark1 has quit IRC17:38
*** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican17:39
*** chellygelly has quit IRC17:59
*** rellerreller has joined #openstack-barbican18:08
*** Guest22704 has quit IRC18:09
jvrbanacwoodster_, I added a couple small comments on your CR18:16
woodster_alee: I replied to your comments in chellygel's CR:
woodster_jvrbanac: thanks, I'll take a look18:21
*** paul_glass has quit IRC18:22
*** Guest22704 has joined #openstack-barbican18:25
redrobotwoodster_ RE this BluePrint
redrobotwoodster_ was the BP concerned with also adding the MIME-Type versioning support18:29
redrobotwoodster_ the description is kind of vague18:29
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
redrobotwoodster_ yeah, sorry saw John Wood as drafter and assumed you wrote the description18:31
redrobotwoodster_ the BP is marked as done for juno-318:31
redrobotwoodster_ but I think it needs to be changed to just dropping RBAC from the version resource18:32
redrobotsince that's all teh work that was done18:32
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:
woodster_redrobot this is the json-home BP18:33
redrobotwoodster_ 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 already18:34
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
redrobotyeah, I think we can start moving pending BluePrints to Kilo18:36
*** lisaclark1 has quit IRC18:38
redrobotI see where topic branch names matter now18:40
redrobotthe CR's topic does not match the BP title, so they didn't get linked18:41
*** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican18:43
*** lisaclark1 has quit IRC18:44
*** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican18:47
woodster_redrobot, jvrbanac: I added a cover comment and in-module one regarding your comments:
woodster_redrobot: so the 'Implements: blueprint fix-version-api18:49
woodster_ ' in the comment doesn't link this?18:49
jvrbanacwoodster_, what is the desired outcome of that test?18:51
redrobotwoodster_ not sure... maybe a combination of the two?18:51
redrobotwoodster_ actually, Implements: xxx in the commit message gives a link to a multi-project view in Launchpad18:52
redrobotthe topic branch when set to bp/name-of-bp adds a comment to the BP with the url to the CR18:53
redrobotthe url comments are super useful when trying to figure out how many CRs have been submitted for a particualr BP18:53
redrobotthe commit message is useful for cross-project blueprints, I suppose?18:54
redrobotie, 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
openstackgerritChelsea Winfree proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Adding initial update logic for orders
chellygelalee, : ^19:00
chellygelalee, please look when you get the chance today :D19:00
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
redrobotwoodster_ hehe... that'd be nice19:01
redrobotwoodster_ unfortunately, it doesn't seem Gerrit->Launchpad was wired that way19:02
redrobotit should be possible to keep dependent crs in the same branch,  it does get tricky if you're constantly updating patches for parents though19:02
*** paul_glass has joined #openstack-barbican19:02
*** rellerreller has quit IRC19:03
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...we19:03
woodster_'d really take forever to get work approved19:03
woodster_redrobot: s/they are story level/they would become story level/19:04
redrobotwoodster_ 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
redrobotwhen you submit it19:04
redrobotit doesn't necessarily mean you have to change your workflow, but you do have to juggle branches a little more19:05
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 them19:05
redrobotwoodster_ not necessarily.  you can have 5 commits in the same topic branch... each will depend on the previous19:06
woodster_redrobot: so the blueprint has to be at the CR level19:06
redrobotwoodster_ the way I like to think about branches are just labels on a particular commit19:06
redrobotif 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 cr19:07
redrobotdefinitely not the best approach, but I think it does have some benefits19:08
woodster_redrobot: that seems like an error-prone workflow, but would like to see that in operation.19:08
redrobotwoodster_ it enables views like this in gerrit:,n,z19:09
redrobotwoodster_ so we can easily see there's been 6 CRs related to the bp in question19:10
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
jvrbanacwoodster_, I'm not sure I understand your reply comment.19:11
jvrbanacwoodster_, shouldn't there be something to assert against for those tests?19:12
jvrbanaceven that a method was called or something?19:12
woodster_jvrbanac: the cert event plugin does not raise exceptions, nor should just reports that an event happened19:12
jvrbanacwoodster_, ok, then shouldn't we have a assertion that makes sure the report happens or whatever19:13
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
jvrbanacwoodster_, my concern is that these tests push up false coverage numbers due to the code just being hit, but nothing asserted19:14
woodster_jvrbanac: are you thinking a log patch on this, and then verify the specific log message was written?19:14
*** lisaclark1 has quit IRC19:16
jvrbanacwoodster_, I guess the SimpleCertificateEventPlugin doesn't do jack does it19:16
*** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican19:17
jvrbanacwoodster_, I'm not a fan of patching fields that utilize gettext, because the tests will break in some CI environments19:18
jvrbanacwoodster_, 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 method was called, as I18n will provide a different actual string depending19:20
woodster_on the locale the tests are run in.19:20
jvrbanacwoodster_, 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 CR19:24
aleewoodster_, cool- thanks!19:24
aleewoodster_, looking at your responses in the update CR19:25
woodster_alee: So this?: dogtag = barbican.plugin.dogtag:DogtagCAPlugin19:28
aleewoodster_, I think so -- looking19:29
aleewoodster_, sound right to me - thanks!19:30
woodster_alee: cool, will put up shortly19:31
woodster_jvrbanac: So John, would a comment such as this work?: Test that eventing plugin method does not have side effects such as raising exceptions19:32
woodster_jvrbanac: cool, thanks19:33
openstackgerritJohn Wood proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Add initial files for certificate event handling
*** lisaclark1 has quit IRC19:45
aleewoodster_, just responded to your comment in update CR19:48
*** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican19:49
openstackgerritJohn Wood proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Remove config parameter from interface
woodster_jaosorior, jvrbanac, rm_work: ^^^^ That CR blends the approaches we've discussed, please let me know if that makes sense though19:53
jaosoriorSure thing mr. woodster_ , I'll check it tomorrow morning. Have a good days guys!  Heading off19:54
chellygelalee, in response to your comment on the CR -- what is "bad data" to dog tag?19:54
chellygelalee, according to symantec -- we would cancel the PENDING orders after 21 days, if no change is made19:55
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
chellygelalee, 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 canceled19:56
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
chellygelalee, s/client/customer/g haha19:57
aleechellygel, bad data would include for instance not including a required input -- like a csr19:57
chellygelalee, wouldn't that be validated before even reacfhing the plugin though?19:57
aleechellygel, that depends on what validations we put in there.19:58
aleechellygel, when we have a common api, we will be able to do some vailidations19:58
aleebut in general dogtag offers a wide range of certifcates that can be requested19:59
aleeincluding certiifcate profiles that can be customized however you want19:59
aleewe will never be able to do all validations on the barbican side19:59
chellygelalee, for a symantec order we require a CSR, Approver Email, & Contact info (business information & administrator information)20:00
chellygelit seems though, for something like a CSR, that is needed before you can ever get a certificate in any instance though, right?20:00
aleechellygel, thats for just one type of certificate -- I suspect there are many others possible20:00
aleeand the symantec admin may choose to rerquire something else.20:01
chellygelcan you have a certificate without a CSR?20:01
aleechellygel, I was using that as an example .. there may be other required fields20:01
chellygelsure, when you said other cert types i was confused ! hah, i actually googled it >_>20:02
aleechellygel, there are for example different versions of csr's ..  pkcs10, crmf ..20:02
aleeand with dogtag, I can make the request as an agent and get it automatically approved -- which means errors can be found in processing20:03
chellygelwould it be acceptable then for barbican to have a cancel method that is time based? to prevent pending orders from hanging?20:03
aleelike fields in my csr that might be wrong20:04
aleekey size too small20:04
aleesubject dn not following requirements20:04
chellygelkicking the status to error, right?20:04
aleeany of the myriad reasons a CA admin might reject a csr20:04
aleechellygel, I dont think thats a barbican policy decision20:05
chellygeli was thinking something configurable, ig uess?20:05
aleeright now - it kicks it to error -- but I'm ok with that.20:05
chellygelas a default, if that makes sense?20:05
aleechellygel, I think its just better not to leave it in PENDING state.20:06
aleeor call it PENDING_CLIENT if you like ..20:06
chellygelbut would dogtag choose which state to put it to?20:06
chellygelso for your short orders it would choose ERROR rather than pending?20:07
aleedogtag will return REJECTED, and the dogtag plugin would return DATA_INVALID to barbican-core20:07
aleeright now, barbican-core throws an exception - which will kick it to ERROR state.20:08
aleebut we can change that -- what to do with that is exactly what we are trying to decide.20:08
chellygeli see, thank you :)20:10
redrobotatiwari is on the way to be merged.  Was there one more CR for this Blueprint?20:12
atiwariredrobot, as I told you need to push one more20:12
atiwariworking on it20:12
atiwariredrobot, placeholder20:13
redrobotatiwari ok, that's what I thought you said.20:13
redrobotatiwari 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 (via20:13
woodster_polling) to Barbican. Nothing.20:13
redrobotatiwari can you change the topic so that it matches the rest of the CRs?20:13
atiwariI will do that soon20:14
redrobotatiwari sounds good.20:14
aleewoodster_, so no love for PENDING_CLIENT?20:16
aleewoodster_, 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
aleewoodster_, 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
aleewoodster_, 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 Barbican20:21
woodster_isn't update until it polls the CA.20:21
aleewoodster_, all previous orders were not update-able -- there was no PENDING_CLIENT state.20:22
*** lisaclark1 has quit IRC20:22
aleewoodster_, 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 like20:24
woodster_sub-status? Now business logic specific to that process can heppen on its on20:24
aleewoodster_, ok - I guess it can be done as a sub-status20:28
aleechellygel, woodster_ you'll need to change the existing code to do that then ie. in issue_certificate and check_certificate20:29
openstackgerritJeremy Stanley proposed a change to openstack/kite: Work toward Python 3.4 support and testing
woodster_alee: that would be my preference for now, but could be talked out of it in Paris. :)20:30
openstackgerritJeremy Stanley proposed a change to openstack/python-barbicanclient: Work toward Python 3.4 support and testing
aleewoodster_, I'll be sure to ply you with lots of wine before broaching the subject20:30
openstackgerritJeremy Stanley proposed a change to openstack/python-kiteclient: Work toward Python 3.4 support and testing
chellygelalee, wait a minute, i'll be his sober reminder20:31
chellygelalee, you'll have to bring double the wine :P20:31
aleewoodster_, chellygel - fortunately they seem to have a fair amout of wine in Paris ..20:31
chellygelhaha i'll hold you to that!20:32
aleewoodster_, chellygel - so you'll be changing the existing code in your cr?20:32
openstackgerritA change was merged to openstack/barbican: Reorganize code to use store crypto plug-in
aleewe really do need substatus soon to make sense of all of this.20:32
*** Guest22704 has quit IRC20:33
*** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican20:33
*** lisaclark1 has quit IRC20:34
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 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 final20:35
aleewoodster_, thats fine.20:35
aleechellygel, there are just a few small changes there then ..20:36
*** akoneru is now known as akoneru_lunch20:42
*** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican20:44
*** lisaclark1 has quit IRC20:46
*** Guest22704 has joined #openstack-barbican20:46
*** kebray has joined #openstack-barbican20:48
chellygeli apologize alee, im missing context -- which changes?20:50
chellygelwoodster_, has stepped away20:50
aleechellygel, see my comments in your latest patch20:51
*** juantwo has quit IRC20:58
openstackgerritArvind Tiwari proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Add asymmtric order validator
*** lisaclark1 has joined #openstack-barbican21:03
aleechellygel, just commented back21:04
woodster_redrobot, jvrbanac, reaperhulk: Any core reviewers out there that can take a look at this?:
woodster_alee: thanks for the review btw21:04
redrobotwoodster_ looking21:05
woodster_redrobot: will change the topic branch shortly btw21:05
openstackgerritChelsea Winfree proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Adding initial update logic for orders
chellygelalee, woodster_ ^21:15
aleechellygel, actually - why do you even read the order_type from the request?21:18
woodster_redrobot: I think I changed that topic branch now:
aleechellygel, you dont actually use it anywhere21:20
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 order21:21
aleechellygel, woodster_ yeah - but that check isn't there.21:22
redrobotwoodster_ looks fine to me now... you'll have to show me how to do that via UI21:22
woodster_redrobot: There is a wee little icon to the right of the 'Topic       <topic branch name>' line there21:24
woodster_redrobot: looks like only the author can change it that way21:24
aleewoodster_, 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
redrobotwoodster_ nice! so you don't have to juggle branches21:25
aleein 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
redrobotI'm definitely going to start harrassing people about proper topic branch names then21:27
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 fact21:28
chellygeladding the comparison goes back to your comment about adding a 400 with changing the type, yes?21:29
aleechellygel, right there are two different checks here21:30
aleechellygel, one is that the types in the request and the db match21:30
aleedb = order_model21:30
aleechellygel, the other is that the order type supports update21:30
aleeI think you want two different checks and two different exceptions21:31
aleeboth 40021:31
aleebut 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 above21:32
chellygelis order_cannot_update_type a good name for the mentioned error?21:33
openstackgerritA change was merged to openstack/barbican: Remove some inline if/else statements
chellygelalee, ^21:35
aleemaybe order_cannot_modify_order_type ?21:36
openstackgerritChelsea Winfree proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Adding initial update logic for orders
chellygeli should change the message too21:43
chellygellemme do that21:43
openstackgerritChelsea Winfree proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Adding initial update logic for orders
*** akoneru_lunch is now known as akoneru21:46
*** paul_glass has quit IRC21:49
*** SheenaG1 has quit IRC21:51
*** rm_work has quit IRC21:54
redrobothockeynut ping21:58
*** rm_work|away has joined #openstack-barbican22:01
*** rm_work|away is now known as rm_work22:01
*** rm_work has joined #openstack-barbican22:01
*** lisaclark1 has quit IRC22:01
*** jaosorior has quit IRC22:02
*** alee is now known as alee_dinner22:03
*** jorge_munoz has joined #openstack-barbican22:07
chellygelthanks alee_dinner ! I really appreciate you helping me :)22:09
*** nkinder has quit IRC22:10
*** openstack has joined #openstack-barbican22:10
woodster_any core devs out there for this CR:
woodster_just needs workflow +122:16
woodster_redrobot: can you spare a +1 bruthah?22:19
woodster_jvrbanac, reaperhulk: ^^^22:21
*** nkinder has joined #openstack-barbican22:26
*** juantwo has joined #openstack-barbican22:47
*** juantwo has quit IRC22:47
*** juantwo has joined #openstack-barbican22:47
*** nkinder has quit IRC22:53
*** SheenaG1 has joined #openstack-barbican22:54
*** kebray has quit IRC22:55
*** SheenaG11 has joined #openstack-barbican22:56
*** SheenaG1 has quit IRC22:58
*** gyee has quit IRC22:59
*** openstackstatus has quit IRC23:19
*** openstackstatus has joined #openstack-barbican23:19
*** ChanServ sets mode: +v openstackstatus23:19
openstackgerritArvind Tiwari proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Add asymmtric order validator
atiwariredrobot, yt?23:28
*** atiwari has quit IRC23:34
*** Guest22704 has quit IRC23:50
*** nkinder has joined #openstack-barbican23:51
openstackgerritJorge Munoz proposed a change to openstack/barbican: Adding missing unit test on queue server tasks

Generated by 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!