Open Stack

FYI dogpile.cache issue was opened:
https://github.com/sqlalchemy/dogpile.cache/issues/144

Come with a possible oslo.cache solution that I've introduce there =>
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/638788/8

Le mar. 26 févr. 2019 à 16:49, Ben Nemec <openstack at nemebean.com> a écrit :

> Copying Mike. More thoughts inline.
>
> On 2/26/19 9:24 AM, Herve Beraud wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Just a heads up that the latest version of dogpile (0.7.0 onwards)
> > have become incompatible with oslo.cache.  This is causing a few
> > issues for jobs.  It's a little complex due to functional code and many
> > decorated functions.
> >
> > The error you will see is:
> > /
> > /
> >
> >
> /oslo_cache.//tests.test_//cache.CacheRegi//onTest.//test_function_//key_generator_//with_kwargs
> >
> -------//-------//-------//-------//-------//-------//-------//-------//-------//-------//-------//------/
> >
> > //
> >
> > /Captured traceback:
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >      b'Traceback (most recent call last):'
> >      b' File "/tmp/oslo.//cache/oslo_//cache/tests///test_cache.//py",
> > line 324, in test_function_//key_generator_//with_kwargs'
> >      b' value=self.//test_value)//'
> >      b' File
> >
> "/tmp/oslo.//cache/.//tox/py37///lib/python3.//7/site-//packages///testtools///testcase.//py",
>
> > line 485, in assertRaises'
> >      b' self.assertThat//(our_callable, matcher)'
> >      b' File
> >
> "/tmp/oslo.//cache/.//tox/py37///lib/python3.//7/site-//packages///testtools///testcase.//py",
>
> > line 498, in assertThat'
> >      b' raise mismatch_error'
> >      b'testtools//.matchers.//_impl.MismatchE//rror: <function
> >
> CacheRegionTest//._get_cacheable//_function.//<locals>//.cacheable_//function
>
> > at 0x7fec3f795400> returned
> > <oslo_cache.//tests.test_//cache.TestProxy//Value object at
> > 0x7fec3f792550>'/
> >
> >
> > The problem appear since we uncap dogpile.cache on oslo.cache:
> >
> https://github.com/openstack/oslo.cache/commit/62b53099861134859482656dc92db81243b88bd9
> >
> > The following unit test fail since we uncap dogpile =>
> >
> https://github.com/openstack/oslo.cache/blob/master/oslo_cache/tests/test_cache.py#L318
> >
> > The problem was introduced by:
> > https://gerrit.sqlalchemy.org/#/c/sqlalchemy/dogpile.cache/+/996/
> >
> > Your main issue on oslo.cache side is that keyword arguments are
> > tranformed in positionnal arguments when we use
> > dogpile.cache.region.cache_on_arguments.
> >
> > I've try to revert the changes introduced by the previous dogpile.cache
> > change and everything works fine on the oslo.cache side when changes was
> > reverted (reverted to revision
> >
> https://github.com/sqlalchemy/dogpile.cache/blob/2762ada1f5e43075494d91c512f7c1ec68907258/dogpile/cache/region.py
> ).
> >
> > The expected behavior is that dogpile.cache.util.function_key_generator
> > raise a ValueError if **kwargs founds, but our kwargs is empty and our
> > `value=self.test_value was` is recognized as a positionnal argument.
> > Our unit test looking for an assertRaise(ValueError) on cachable
> > decorated function when we pass kwargs but it doesn't happen due to
> > empty kwargs.
> >
> > For these reasons we guess that is an dogpile.cache issue and not an
> > oslo.cache issue due to the changes introduced by `decorator` module.
> >
> > The following are related:
> >
> > -
> >
> https://github.com/openstack/oslo.cache/blob/master/oslo_cache/tests/test_cache.py#L318
> > : unit test where the problem occure
> > - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/638788/ : possible fix but we don't
> > think that is the right way
> > - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/638732/ : possible remove of the
> unit
> > test who fail
>
> As I noted in the reviews, I don't think this is something we should
> have been testing in oslo.cache in the first place. The failing test is
> testing the dogpile interface, not the oslo.cache one. I've seen no
> evidence that oslo.cache is doing anything wrong here, so our unit tests
> are clearly testing something that should be out of scope.
>
> And to be clear, I'm not even sure this is a bug in dogpile. It may be a
> happy side-effect of the decorator change that the regular decorator now
> works for kwargs too. I don't know dogpile well enough to make a
> definitive statement on that though. Hence cc'ing Mike. :-)
>
> >
> > The issue is being tracked in:
> >
> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/oslo.cache/+bug/1817032
> >
> > If some dogpile expert can take a look and send feedback on this thread
> > you are welcome.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --
> > Hervé Beraud
> > Senior Software Engineer
> > Red Hat - Openstack Oslo
> > irc: hberaud
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> > wsFcBAABCAAQBQJb4AwCCRAHwXRBNkGNegAALSkQAHrotwCiL3VMwDR0vcja10Q+
> > Kf31yCutl5bAlS7tOKpPQ9XN4oC0ZSThyNNFVrg8ail0SczHXsC4rOrsPblgGRN+
> > RQLoCm2eO1AkB0ubCYLaq0XqSaO+Uk81QxAPkyPCEGT6SRxXr2lhADK0T86kBnMP
> > F8RvGolu3EFjlqCVgeOZaR51PqwUlEhZXZuuNKrWZXg/oRiY4811GmnvzmUhgK5G
> > 5+f8mUg74hfjDbR2VhjTeaLKp0PhskjOIKY3vqHXofLuaqFDD+WrAy/NgDGvN22g
> > glGfj472T3xyHnUzM8ILgAGSghfzZF5Skj2qEeci9cB6K3Hm3osj+PbvfsXE/7Kw
> > m/xtm+FjnaywZEv54uCmVIzQsRIm1qJscu20Qw6Q0UiPpDFqD7O6tWSRKdX11UTZ
> > hwVQTMh9AKQDBEh2W9nnFi9kzSSNu4OQ1dRMcYHWfd9BEkccezxHwUM4Xyov5Fe0
> > qnbfzTB1tYkjU78loMWFaLa00ftSxP/DtQ//iYVyfVNfcCwfDszXLOqlkvGmY1/Y
> > F1ON0ONekDZkGJsDoS6QdiUSn8RZ2mHArGEWMV00EV5DCIbCXRvywXV43ckx8Z+3
> > B8qUJhBqJ8RS2F+vTs3DTaXqcktgJ4UkhYC2c1gImcPRyGrK9VY0sCT+1iA+wp/O
> > v6rDpkeNksZ9fFSyoY2o
> > =ECSj
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
>
>

-- 
Hervé Beraud
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat - Openstack Oslo
irc: hberaud
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=ECSj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20190226/cb1258d7/attachment-0001.html>