Merge lp://qastaging/~jaypipes/drizzle/publisher into lp://qastaging/~drizzle-trunk/drizzle/development

Taking into Work In Progress. Eric and I discussed moving the replication.proto into the transaction log module and not requiring publishers and subscribers to keep a GPB manifest if they didn't want to. This makes sense. The GPB manifest is implementation, not interface.

Moves the replication.proto file into /plugin/transaction_log/ since it is implementation-dependent stuff.

Great work! Plugin point for Publisher looks sane, as for locking in the transaction log publisher plugin (your comment on using a scoreboard method), it depends how expensive the calls are in the lock. We might just want to break it down to one lock/channel.

FYI, saw the valgrind error and have pushed a fix.

Heya, what information do you need on this one? Related to the
testing in Python or something else? Happy to answer, just let me
know...

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Brian Aker <email address hidden> wrote:
> Review: Needs Information
>
> --
> https://code.launchpad.net/~jaypipes/drizzle/publisher/+merge/23785
> You are the owner of lp:~jaypipes/drizzle/publisher.
>

Hi!

I marked it because of the python testing. PatrickC offered to look at extend test-run.pl so solve this issue so I am currently waiting to hear from him about it.

Cheers,
 -Brian

On May 27, 2010, at 8:42 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:

> Heya, what information do you need on this one? Related to the
> testing in Python or something else? Happy to answer, just let me
> know...
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Brian Aker <email address hidden> wrote:
>> Review: Needs Information
>>
>> --
>> https://code.launchpad.net/~jaypipes/drizzle/publisher/+merge/23785
>> You are the owner of lp:~jaypipes/drizzle/publisher.
>>
> --
> https://code.launchpad.net/~jaypipes/drizzle/publisher/+merge/23785
> You are reviewing the proposed merge of lp:~jaypipes/drizzle/publisher into lp:drizzle.

Expect to have some word on this next week. I've been a bit occupied with
some other tasks this week. I'll likely be in touch with you then, Jay. My
apologies for the hold-up on the review.

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Brian Aker <email address hidden> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I marked it because of the python testing. PatrickC offered to look at
> extend test-run.pl so solve this issue so I am currently waiting to hear
> from him about it.
>
> Cheers,
> -Brian
>
> On May 27, 2010, at 8:42 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>
> > Heya, what information do you need on this one? Related to the
> > testing in Python or something else? Happy to answer, just let me
> > know...
> >
> > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Brian Aker <email address hidden> wrote:
> >> Review: Needs Information
> >>
> >> --
> >> https://code.launchpad.net/~jaypipes/drizzle/publisher/+merge/23785
> >> You are the owner of lp:~jaypipes/drizzle/publisher.
> >>
> > --
> > https://code.launchpad.net/~jaypipes/drizzle/publisher/+merge/23785
> > You are reviewing the proposed merge of lp:~jaypipes/drizzle/publisher
> into lp:drizzle.
>
> --
> https://code.launchpad.net/~jaypipes/drizzle/publisher/+merge/23785
> Your team Drizzle-developers is requested to review the proposed merge of
> lp:~jaypipes/drizzle/publisher into lp:drizzle.
>

No worries at all, Patrick.

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Patrick Crews <email address hidden> wrote:
> Expect to have some word on this next week.  I've been a bit occupied with
> some other tasks this week.  I'll likely be in touch with you then, Jay.  My
> apologies for the hold-up on the review.
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Brian Aker <email address hidden> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I marked it because of the python testing. PatrickC offered to look at
>> extend test-run.pl so solve this issue so I am currently waiting to hear
>> from him about it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>        -Brian
>>
>> On May 27, 2010, at 8:42 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>>
>> > Heya, what information do you need on this one?  Related to the
>> > testing in Python or something else?  Happy to answer, just let me
>> > know...
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Brian Aker <email address hidden> wrote:
>> >> Review: Needs Information
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> https://code.launchpad.net/~jaypipes/drizzle/publisher/+merge/23785
>> >> You are the owner of lp:~jaypipes/drizzle/publisher.
>> >>
>> > --
>> > https://code.launchpad.net/~jaypipes/drizzle/publisher/+merge/23785
>> > You are reviewing the proposed merge of lp:~jaypipes/drizzle/publisher
>> into lp:drizzle.
>>
>> --
>> https://code.launchpad.net/~jaypipes/drizzle/publisher/+merge/23785
>> Your team Drizzle-developers is requested to review the proposed merge of
>> lp:~jaypipes/drizzle/publisher into lp:drizzle.
>>
>
> --
> https://code.launchpad.net/~jaypipes/drizzle/publisher/+merge/23785
> You are the owner of lp:~jaypipes/drizzle/publisher.
>

On Fri, 28 May 2010 22:39:30 -0000, Patrick Crews <email address hidden> wrote:
> Expect to have some word on this next week. I've been a bit occupied with
> some other tasks this week. I'll likely be in touch with you then, Jay. My
> apologies for the hold-up on the review.

We should really port mtr2 back in before doing lots of modifications.

--
Stewart Smith

After looking at the tests here, I have to say that I'm in favor of leaving the Python testing as-is unless there is some really urgent need to not have it.

My reasoning:
* protoc doesn't produce perl code. We use the python-generated code to interact with the manifest and get useful, test-related data.
* The current python code is awfully clean and assertion based, which can fill in gaps that test-run doesn't cover effectively. It's also well-developed / not-half-baked and we can expand the Python test without a lot of fuss.

If the use of python is a deal-breaker, we probably could do something to make it work, but I fear that the effort involved would not be worth the pay-off (at least at present).

I will be looking at - https://bugs.launchpad.net/drizzle/+bug/570948 - bad command-line options hang test cases so that we can improve test-run, but it's just my feeling that we can move things forward by keeping the current test(s)

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:03:26 -0000, Patrick Crews <email address hidden> wrote:
> If the use of python is a deal-breaker, we probably could do something to make it work, but I fear that the effort involved would not be worth the pay-off (at least at present).

We rely on python for parts of the build system anyway, so it's not a
show stopper (if it runs on the pre-historic versions that solaris ship with)

--
Stewart Smith

Not sure why we even are discussing this. Brian's made a decision and that's apparently all that matters.

Hi!

Until it fits under the test framework we have it won't be mergable. As pointed out in previous comments "and we can expand the Python test without a lot of fuss" is exactly the issue. Once we have two systems we end up with a tower babble. So until we can test with the current framework this patch is non-starter.

Cheers,
  -Brian