Another random idea: what about -e ../swh-docs#egg=swh.docs (or a variant that works, I didn't try it) instead of `-e git+https://forge.softwareheritage.org/source/swh-docs#egg=swh.docs ?

typo

In D5576#141650, @vsellier wrote:

I suppose the message.value() is returning a copy of the content

It also makes the module aware of how the objects are serialized on kafka, which looks quite low level.

Looks good overall, but I'm not familiar with this piece of code.

fix typo

found the bug, it was variable shadowing in handle_messages.

D5576

I'll send a diff with my idea, it will be clearer

In D5572#141527, @vsellier wrote:

It's for performance considerations only, for most of the counters, counting the keys is enough as it's the unique identifier in kafka.
The KeyOrientedJournalClient[1] is bypassing the object deserialization when a message is received, so a more classical client is needed for this specific Person case.

So we will need two journal clients, one that reads only keys, and one that reads only messages? Why not a single one to do both?

Still missing documentation of the journal_type CLI argument AFAICT

(requesting changes, so you don't accidentally merge it if you missed the notif, but I'm fine on principle)

thx!

Why use hypothesis for this? According to Jenkins, one of the two important branches are not covered.

rebase

update copyright

Looks good, thanks!

If we replaced the code with just this:

Can't you use exhaustive comparisons instead of len(sors) == 1 + comparing items?

In case you missed my message on IRC/Matrix:

We need more loud warnings of doc build issues (eg. broken references) first.

I just discussed the multiplexer-based migration process I described above with ardumont/olasd/vsellier.

Doesn't this deserve a state-of-the-art kind of thing?

it should be:

From what I understand, the addition of importlib-metadata to requirements.txt is needed to fix python 3.7, not python 3.8.

that's a lot of code to add to every package :/

rebase

reword in a clearer way

What we can do, however:

@Hakimb You rebase is still incorrect. If you look at the content of the diff, there is still some of your initial work in red.

Uh? That wasn't an issue for me

Oh, looks like I forgot to submit my commit for this...

don't forget to count committers too