Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix: include log-targets when adding a new layer with harness #1194

Conversation

skatsaounis
Copy link

When unit testing charms with Harness, if they are adding a new pebble layer with log-targets, these targets are ignored. This PR is fixing that faulty behavior.

The logic is extracted from the pebble code base:

@benhoyt
Copy link
Collaborator

benhoyt commented Apr 21, 2024

Thanks for the contribution. This is (kind of) mentioned in #1112 (note that "checks" are missing as well as "log-targets"). A couple of things if you'd like to work on this PR further:

Are you willing to work further on this PR to look at it a bit more holistically?

@skatsaounis skatsaounis force-pushed the add-pebble-log-targets-to-layer-harness branch 2 times, most recently from a2ec6bf to f3599df Compare April 22, 2024 22:24
@skatsaounis skatsaounis force-pushed the add-pebble-log-targets-to-layer-harness branch from f3599df to 96654ff Compare April 22, 2024 22:29
@skatsaounis
Copy link
Author

Hi @benhoyt

I think that my two latest commits are taking care of bullets one and three. Thank you for pointing me to the existing issue. I would like to give it a try for the bullet in the middle as well. Should I do it in the same PR or with a follow up? In addition, I think that the static check which is complaining is false positive. However, I am looking forward to a review from a far more experienced pair of eyes to confirm or contradict my suspicion 🙂

@dimaqq
Copy link
Contributor

dimaqq commented May 22, 2024

ci errors:

  /home/runner/work/operator/operator/ops/pebble.py:1088:21 - error: Could not access item in TypedDict
    "headers" is not a required key in "HttpDict", so access may result in runtime exception (reportTypedDictNotRequiredAccess)
  /home/runner/work/operator/operator/ops/pebble.py:1111:21 - error: Could not access item in TypedDict
    "environment" is not a required key in "ExecDict", so access may result in runtime exception (reportTypedDictNotRequiredAccess)

@skatsaounis
Copy link
Author

@dimaqq those two failures are exactly what I am thinking that it is a false positive.

Being more specific, this is the place where one of them is found:

if self.http is None:
    self.http = {'headers': {}}
for header, value in other_headers.items():
    self.http['headers'][header] = value

Unless I am not mistaken, this self.http['headers'] will never fail. I wanted to add ignore to the line but I preferred to ask first for a review and, why not, an alternative suggestion.

Copy link
Contributor

@dimaqq dimaqq left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Partial review at this point, calling out high level / code organisation level considerations.

Comment on lines +1085 to +1088
if self.http is None:
self.http = {'headers': {}}
for header, value in other_headers.items():
self.http['headers'][header] = value
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There's got to be a more elegant way to write this...

Suggested change
if self.http is None:
self.http = {'headers': {}}
for header, value in other_headers.items():
self.http['headers'][header] = value
self.http = {**(self.http or {}).get('headers', {}), **other_headers}

Another option, a little less magical:

Suggested change
if self.http is None:
self.http = {'headers': {}}
for header, value in other_headers.items():
self.http['headers'][header] = value
if self.http is None:
self.http = {'headers': {}}
self.http["headers"].update(other_headers)

As a team, we should actually think about HTTP request header field names, because current API hides the fact that they are case-insensitive by RFC.

Meanwhile a naive merge of {Host:...} + {host:...} will end up with two copies differing by case.

@tonyandrewmeyer wdyt?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree there's got to be a more elegant / lower-code way to write this. For example, if you look at the existing Service._merge, it uses setattr/getattr, but special cases lists and dicts. This makes it significantly less code than the Pebble version.

I think we can take the same approach for LogTarget._merge, and perhaps Check._merge, though the latter has the complication of the nested dicts that we'll need to figure out. Still, it seems to me we can simplify this.

Regarding @dimaqq's point about case sensitivity, I think that's fine as is. Pebble doesn't try to do anything clever here, so we shouldn't either.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One more concern: is there a way to reset some field?

If a layer specifies http.header.Authorization, can a subsequent layer ever reset auth?

Comment on lines +1107 to +1131
if other_environment := other.exec.get('environment'):
if self.exec is None:
self.exec = {'environment': {}}
for environment, value in other_environment.items():
self.exec['environment'][environment] = value
if other_user_id := other.exec.get('user-id'):
if self.exec is None:
self.exec = {}
self.exec['user-id'] = other_user_id
if other_user := other.exec.get('user'):
if self.exec is None:
self.exec = {}
self.exec['user'] = other_user
if other_group_id := other.exec.get('group-id'):
if self.exec is None:
self.exec = {}
self.exec['group-id'] = other_group_id
if other_group := other.exec.get('group'):
if self.exec is None:
self.exec = {}
self.exec['group'] = other_group
if other_working_dir := other.exec.get('working-dir'):
if self.exec is None:
self.exec = {}
self.exec['working-dir'] = other_working_dir
Copy link
Contributor

@dimaqq dimaqq May 27, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There's a bit too much manual code for my liking.

Perhaps we could use getattr/setattr to simplify this over a set of member field names.

@benhoyt
Copy link
Collaborator

benhoyt commented Jul 1, 2024

This is superseded by #1268

@benhoyt benhoyt closed this Jul 1, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants