We currently have a hotfix for python-bugzilla in puppet.
This is breaking the newer version of python-bugzilla that reviewstatus uses. ie, if we update to the newer version it's got this hotfix against the old version it breaks.
tibbs investigated and this hotfix is no longer needed against the newer version.
So, I would like to drop the hotfix, and update to the new version and see if reviewstats is happy as I hope it will be. It shouldn't affect anything release blocking, but would be nice to fix.
Related ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/4429
+1s?
kevin -- diff --git a/modules/hotfix/manifests/init.pp b/modules/hotfix/manifests/init.pp index a12b063..ae7850f 100644 --- a/modules/hotfix/manifests/init.pp +++ b/modules/hotfix/manifests/init.pp @@ -142,10 +142,6 @@ class hotfix::fas_client { }
class hotfix::python-bugzilla { - file { "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/bugzilla/base.py": - source => 'puppet:///hotfix/python-bugzilla/base.py', - mode => '0644' - } }
class hotfix::python-logging {
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 12:31:58 -0700 Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
We currently have a hotfix for python-bugzilla in puppet.
This is breaking the newer version of python-bugzilla that reviewstatus uses. ie, if we update to the newer version it's got this hotfix against the old version it breaks.
tibbs investigated and this hotfix is no longer needed against the newer version.
So, I would like to drop the hotfix, and update to the new version and see if reviewstats is happy as I hope it will be. It shouldn't affect anything release blocking, but would be nice to fix.
Related ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/4429
+1s?
Assuming that the patch would involve removing all the includes on the python-bugzilla hotfix, +1 from me.
If it somehow does affect FAS, it doesn't sound like that could be non-workaroundable breakage and it sounds really unlikely, anyways.
Tim
kevin
diff --git a/modules/hotfix/manifests/init.pp b/modules/hotfix/manifests/init.pp index a12b063..ae7850f 100644 --- a/modules/hotfix/manifests/init.pp +++ b/modules/hotfix/manifests/init.pp @@ -142,10 +142,6 @@ class hotfix::fas_client { }
class hotfix::python-bugzilla {
- file { "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/bugzilla/base.py":
source => 'puppet:///hotfix/python-bugzilla/base.py',
mode => '0644'
- }
}
class hotfix::python-logging {
+1 for thsi change. Should be easy to unbreak.
On 1 December 2014 at 12:31, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
We currently have a hotfix for python-bugzilla in puppet.
This is breaking the newer version of python-bugzilla that reviewstatus uses. ie, if we update to the newer version it's got this hotfix against the old version it breaks.
tibbs investigated and this hotfix is no longer needed against the newer version.
So, I would like to drop the hotfix, and update to the new version and see if reviewstats is happy as I hope it will be. It shouldn't affect anything release blocking, but would be nice to fix.
Related ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/4429
+1s?
kevin
diff --git a/modules/hotfix/manifests/init.pp b/modules/hotfix/manifests/init.pp index a12b063..ae7850f 100644 --- a/modules/hotfix/manifests/init.pp +++ b/modules/hotfix/manifests/init.pp @@ -142,10 +142,6 @@ class hotfix::fas_client { }
class hotfix::python-bugzilla {
- file { "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/bugzilla/base.py":
source => 'puppet:///hotfix/python-bugzilla/base.py',
mode => '0644'
- }
}
class hotfix::python-logging {
infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
ok, so we are going to need at least part of the hotfix back, or revert to 1.0.0 + old hotfix.
Both the reviewstats and fas cron jobs are now waiting to make token files. The reviewstats cron just needs to read things, so it's not so big a deal, but the fas one uses a priv bugzilla user, so I do not want a token file.
I'll see if I can come up with a hotfix to prevent the token files.
kevin
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 11:31:09 -0700 Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
ok, so we are going to need at least part of the hotfix back, or revert to 1.0.0 + old hotfix.
Both the reviewstats and fas cron jobs are now waiting to make token files. The reviewstats cron just needs to read things, so it's not so big a deal, but the fas one uses a priv bugzilla user, so I do not want a token file.
I'll see if I can come up with a hotfix to prevent the token files.
ok. I think the following change to export-bugzilla on fas01 should fix the token file issues. We will also need the same change in reviewstats but there's no hurry there, it can just use a tokenfile for now.
--- export-bugzilla 2014-12-02 11:49:50.514762132 -0700 +++ export-bugzilla.fas01 2014-12-02 11:53:13.822125662 -0700 @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ bzGroup = args[1]
server = bugzilla.Bugzilla(url=BZSERVER, user=BZUSER, password=BZPASS, - cookiefile=None) + cookiefile=None, tokenfile=None) bugzilla_queue = BugzillaQueue.query.join('group').filter_by( name=ourGroup)
+1's to apply as a hotfix?
kevin
+1 from me.
On 2 December 2014 at 11:56, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 11:31:09 -0700 Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
ok, so we are going to need at least part of the hotfix back, or revert to 1.0.0 + old hotfix.
Both the reviewstats and fas cron jobs are now waiting to make token files. The reviewstats cron just needs to read things, so it's not so big a deal, but the fas one uses a priv bugzilla user, so I do not want a token file.
I'll see if I can come up with a hotfix to prevent the token files.
ok. I think the following change to export-bugzilla on fas01 should fix the token file issues. We will also need the same change in reviewstats but there's no hurry there, it can just use a tokenfile for now.
--- export-bugzilla 2014-12-02 11:49:50.514762132 -0700 +++ export-bugzilla.fas01 2014-12-02 11:53:13.822125662 -0700 @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ bzGroup = args[1]
server = bugzilla.Bugzilla(url=BZSERVER, user=BZUSER, password=BZPASS,
cookiefile=None)
bugzilla_queue = BugzillaQueue.query.join('group').filter_by( name=ourGroup)cookiefile=None, tokenfile=None)
+1's to apply as a hotfix?
kevin
infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 11:56:34AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 11:31:09 -0700 Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
ok, so we are going to need at least part of the hotfix back, or revert to 1.0.0 + old hotfix.
Both the reviewstats and fas cron jobs are now waiting to make token files. The reviewstats cron just needs to read things, so it's not so big a deal, but the fas one uses a priv bugzilla user, so I do not want a token file.
I'll see if I can come up with a hotfix to prevent the token files.
ok. I think the following change to export-bugzilla on fas01 should fix the token file issues. We will also need the same change in reviewstats but there's no hurry there, it can just use a tokenfile for now.
--- export-bugzilla 2014-12-02 11:49:50.514762132 -0700 +++ export-bugzilla.fas01 2014-12-02 11:53:13.822125662 -0700 @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ bzGroup = args[1]
server = bugzilla.Bugzilla(url=BZSERVER, user=BZUSER, password=BZPASS,
cookiefile=None)
bugzilla_queue = BugzillaQueue.query.join('group').filter_by( name=ourGroup)cookiefile=None, tokenfile=None)
+1's to apply as a hotfix?
+1
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org