database and frontend for results storage
Wed, Jul 19
Now making more use of the flask-oidc 1.1 features to do less token checking inside resultsdb itself.
Thu, Jul 13
Mon, Jul 3
I do not think we should sync requirements.txt into setup.py. We only need some of the packages in the requirements.txt, not all of them.
Also, it is not a best pratice to pin dependencies to specific versions for install_requires. I would rather do something like this
'fedmsg', 'alembic' ...
Sun, Jul 2
@jskladan , we're expecting the developers to set up a development enviroment with pip in a python virtualenv. What we want is to be able to do this when ResultsDB is installed with pip.
I will commit some time to sumibt a patch.
Fri, Jun 30
for future ref, the reasonable way to get around syncing requirements.txt and setup.py is adding:
+ with open('requirements.txt') as fd: + install_requires = [l.strip() for l in fd.readlines() if l.strip() and not l.strip().startswith('#> ... + install_requires=install_requires,
@mjia BTW what exactly is your use-case, and why is installing from repos not OK for you? I'm asking for two reasons
- packaging resultsdb for PyPi is proving to be rather a PITA
- if you actually need to use resultsdb, setup is necessary - like creating the database, for example - since you are going to need to solve this too (probably are right now anyway) is installing from repos (aka another line in that script that you'll have to have to setup resultsdb anyway) a problem?
Hi, @mija, I don't have any fundamental issues with it, apart of the fact that it adds yet another place to store/track deps.
You can see the error log in F99608.
The problem is in Flask-RESTful==0.3.6. If you use <= 0.3.5, everything works for me. I'll prepare a patch to restrict the max version number. And somebody should figure out why that happens and whether it's something that we need to fix in our tests, or whether it's a flask-restful bug.
Sun, Jun 25
Jun 5 2017
Doh, again I forgot the difference between API endpoint and our frontend.
Apr 11 2017
Mar 21 2017
Production resultsdb seems to work better now, so lowering the priority. However, since we can't track how many tasks failed to post results (since we don't fail them if they do so), it's hard to guess how much uptime do we actually have. Maybe we should start failing jobs if resultsdb responds 5xx? Or retry a few times and fail eventually?
Mar 17 2017
Googlebot stopped hammering us, new robots.txt work. They are present in ansible now. However, it didn't solve the problems, resultsdb (and execdb) is down again.
Mar 16 2017
I have deployed new robots.txt: https://taskotron.fedoraproject.org/robots.txt
We should see whether it helps in a day or so (once Google refreshes that file). Btw, these are the current per-hour access numbers from Google:
So about 3300 hits per hour on overage, 55 per minute. They are performed in bursts, though (ten or twenty simultaneous requests, then a pause, then again).
Mar 15 2017
A short term patch could be to increase the number of processes allocated to the wsgi application.
Mar 13 2017
Feb 27 2017
I think this changed quite a bit with the inception of resultsdb_conventions. Any working on this should probably study that project first.
Feb 21 2017
@mkrizek deployed the new updates. Seems to be working. Closing.
Feb 20 2017
I submitted the new packages to stable. I assume we'll update it on prod tomorrow, and if nothing breaks, I'll close this.
Are there issues, still, or are we waiting for the changes to be deployed on all the instances? Dev seems to be working reasonably well for me.
Feb 15 2017
Feb 10 2017
@adamwill absolutely just a courtesy - we are still talking conventions (like "you should provide an item" style convention, maybe, but still a convention), not hard rules, at least in the scope of the actual implementation.
Also, even if this was "the true way", I'd still see a reason to have "I don't care, and just want a random UUID" thing, and the UUID is also a nice identifier, as it has constant length and such things that only really matter for the machines, and humans don't care, but are important anyway.
Good thing about the actual implementation is, that there won't be collisions between the "random" and "specific" UUIDs by definition of how UUIDs work (different namespaces), so you don't even need to be concerned about "random group results" mixing up with the "proper" ones.
Sure, it makes sense to me. I guess the only question is, does this become the One True Way of creating and identifying groups in resultsdb, or is it merely a courtesy feature in the resultsdb core for the benefit of things that respect this particular convention for naming groups and creating group UUIDs?
Feb 8 2017
Well, not a 'problem', no, not exactly. I mean, it's actually one of the things resultsdb_conventions is *specifically intended to achieve*: it allows (almost requires) different systems to report results to at least some of the same group(s). It establishes the convention 'all test results for a compose should go into a group named for that compose', and *any* reporter that buys into the conventions 'system' and uses the 'compose' convention (or a child of it) will put its results into that group. It's really almost the opposite of what you're talking about: conventions is explicitly a system for *enabling* different systems/submitters to collate / relate related results (in groups, and also by having similarly formatted extradata). Further, at least in my head, the conventions aren't tied to resultsdb_conventions-the-codebase, that's just a current implementation detail; it seems entirely reasonable to me that someone might build another submitter that doesn't actually use resultsdb_conventions (write it in Go or whatever you like), but does respect the same *conventions*.
I understand now why you want to be able to query by group name, have them unique, and use consistent and predictable naming. And it makes sense. Originally we never imagined such use case, I believe, and simply used it to group results from a single task run together (which is sometimes useful when a human inspects the results, that's all). And waited for more use cases (Josef, correct me if I'm wrong). The way you want to use groups is exactly such a new use case, and I would personally probably have solved it with extradata, if I hadn't read this. But using groups can be a better way to tackle this, and maybe even less demanding on the database (Josef?).
Feb 6 2017
I was going to have it done already, but couldn't while my web server was down. I'll write one today or tomorrow.
Feb 3 2017
We need a blogpost about this new awesome feature! I see 4 volunteers:
I don't really care who does it, we can even pick randomly!
Once this is fixed, please also enable automatic test suite execution in Phab, so that we don't encounter this again in the future. See D1113 to learn how.
Feb 2 2017
Should be fixed in d39eadc6f8435e2d9.