Paths

Table of Contentst

Refactor: synchronize workers' service names with configuration yaml key
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by ardumont on Feb 19 2019, 8:31 PM.

Details

Reviewers

olasd
douardda

Group Reviewers

Reviewers

Commits

rSPSITE9994c3ebb54c: storage_archive: Fix
rSPSITE2d04479377db: worker: Rename workers' manifest
rSPSITE81421d439310: rehash: Align keys with service name and fix configuration
rSPSITE04be0f8ae076: indexer: Align keys with service name
rSPSITE70c2aa4fd36a: location: Rename worker instance to proper service names
rSPSITEc278b232d3a7: archiver: Align systemd unit with other workers
rSPSITE26340e85ef8f: defaults/worker: Rename keys appropriately to sync with service name

Summary

Second step to align worker manifests (and keys) with service names.

This prepares the instance.pp refactoring to simplify the workers' definition.

This also fixes some issues on existing configuration (indexer_rehash, storage_archiver).

2 other commits are needed in:

swh-private-data
swh-private-data-censored

due to key renames here (done locally).

Related T1525
Related T1531
Depends D1153

Test Plan

bin/octocatalog ... uffizi	archiver
bin/octocatalog ... worker01	loader/lister
bin/octocatalog ... worker01.euwest.azure	indexer
bin/octocatalog ... worker11.euwest.azure	cooker

all went fine, as is, it wants to do the same thing as in D1153, removes unused stuff.

Diff Detail

Repository

rSPSITE puppet-swh-site

Branch

sync-config-keys-with-service-names

Lint

No Linters Available

Unit

No Unit Test Coverage

Build Status

Buildable 4324
Build 5711: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

ardumont created this revision.Feb 19 2019, 8:31 PM

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B4311: Diff 3634.Feb 19 2019, 8:31 PM

ardumont edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)Feb 19 2019, 8:31 PM

ardumont edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)

ardumont added a project: Puppet recipes.

ardumont edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)Feb 19 2019, 8:34 PM

ardumont edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)

ardumont retitled this revision from defaults/worker: Rename keys appropriately to sync with service name to Refactor: synchronize workers' service names with configuration yaml key.Feb 19 2019, 8:36 PM

ardumont edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)

ardumont added a child revision: D1155: worker/instance: Refactor worker systemd initialization.Feb 19 2019, 9:14 PM

At that point I guess the storage_archiver worker should just be called archiver (the name dates back from the point the archiver was still in the storage namespace), but as it's not in use currently I don't think it's really worth bothering.

I haven't grepped for worker::swh_ in the changed tree but I expect that you did that already.

You also have a stale typo.

data/hostname/banco.softwareheritage.org.yaml
1 ↗	(On Diff #3634)	nope

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Feb 20 2019, 8:51 AM

ardumont marked an inline comment as done.Feb 20 2019, 10:36 AM

ardumont added inline comments.

data/hostname/banco.softwareheritage.org.yaml
1 ↗	(On Diff #3634)	damn! Thanks! i guess i missed a `bin/octocatalog ... banco` here ;)

At that point I guess the storage_archiver worker should just be called archiver (the name dates back from the point the archiver was still in the storage namespace), but as it's not in use currently I don't think it's really worth bothering.

ack, will do after merging all first (to avoid some rebase work and diff update and whatnot)

I haven't grepped for worker::swh_ in the changed tree but I expect that you did that already.

yup, i did and nothing left.

Thanks for the review.

Fix typo and check everything is still fine (+ banco, orangerie[dev] checks) -> ok
Prepare merge

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B4324: Diff 3647.Feb 20 2019, 11:12 AM

Landed (tip: 08a2510)

At that point I guess the storage_archiver worker should just be called archiver (the name dates back from the point the archiver was still in the storage namespace), but as it's not in use currently I don't think it's really worth bothering.

ack, will do after merging all first (to avoid some rebase work and diff update and whatnot)

I did not react to really worth bothering.
Well, if it's in there, i'd prefer it to be consistent.
I could also plainly remove it (as i did the origin-head and revision-metadata indexer...).

ardumont mentioned this in D1158: manifest: Latest refactoring/cleanup .Feb 20 2019, 12:12 PM

ardumont mentioned this in rSPSITE963bdcd1274e: storage_archiver: Make the worker consistent with other ones.Feb 20 2019, 6:08 PM