Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

irc:1431640800 [2017/05/27 13:44] (current)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
 +
 +[00:12:42] <​jtruelove>​ has anyone noticed that the failureHandler on the '​all'​ route doesn'​t seem to work https://​gist.github.com/​jtruelove/​a12173eb5dd9fc10960c
 +
 +[00:13:18] <​jtruelove>​ the loggerHandler logs the missed resource BUT the failure handler doesn'​t
 +
 +[16:35:12] <​purplefox>​ temporalfox:​ hi julien, how's it going?
 +
 +[16:35:21] <​temporalfox>​ purplefox hey almost the weekend :-)
 +
 +[16:35:42] <​purplefox>​ yay! Although I suspect I will be working most of it :(
 +
 +[16:35:43] <​temporalfox>​ purplefox doing good, wrapping up work
 +
 +[16:36:16] <​temporalfox>​ purplefox I will probably work too, although I do have duties that will keep me busy
 +
 +[16:37:24] <​temporalfox>​ I have almost done with ruby / metrics / http service factory
 +
 +[16:37:47] <​temporalfox>​ after that I'll wrap the List<​@DataObject>​ PR and implement the missing languages
 +
 +[16:38:24] <​temporalfox>​ after that, do you want me to handle something in particular ?
 +
 +[16:38:54] <​purplefox>​ i guess anything with your name against it on the roadmap
 +
 +[16:39:53] <​temporalfox>​ ok
 +
 +[16:40:01] <​purplefox>​ pmlopes: thanks for looking at the auth stuff. looks like we posted our msgs at the exact same minute ;)
 +
 +[16:41:05] <​pmlopes>​ purplefox, i just updated my fork to use your base
 +
 +[16:42:20] <​pmlopes>​ but there are some compilation issues, also what is the purpose of dehydrate/​rehydrate i guess it is a fast serialization,​ but for jwt, it is a plain jsonObject, is there a helper for that or do i need to iterate the keys myself?
 +
 +[16:44:40] <​purplefox>​ that's basically for the case where the User objects needs to be serialized so it can go in the clustered session and be available on other nodes
 +
 +[16:45:25] <​purplefox>​ now for jwt not sure you would need to implement that as the jwt token would be passed on each request i guess
 +
 +[16:46:14] <​pmlopes>​ yes so in that case i should say no clustable and my jwt user does not implement the clusterSerializable interface
 +
 +[16:47:00] <​purplefox>​ yeah more or less
 +
 +[16:47:19] <​purplefox>​ i'm still figuring out the serialization stuff, it's a bit awkward
 +
 +[16:50:14] <​purplefox>​ i'm thinking maybe there should be a subclass of AuthProvider called ClusterableAuthProvider so we don't pollute AuthProvider with the methods which are only used for the clusterable ones...
 +
 +[16:51:03] <​pmlopes>​ ok, i will disable it for JWT, now still need to work out the generation of tokens, do you agree on a method on AuthProvider,​ like: void getToken(JsonObject options, Handler<​AsyncResult<​JsonObject>>​ resultHandler);​
 +
 +[16:52:25] <​pmlopes>​ using this api we can generate tokens for jwt, oauth and even refresh tokens since the refresh would be a property of the options json
 +
 +[16:53:08] <​purplefox>​ I suppose this would be on a subclass of AuthProvider not AuthProvider itself as not all AuthProviders will use tokens
 +
 +[16:54:06] <​pmlopes>​ ok, i will implement it
 +
 +[17:02:19] <​temporalfox>​ purplefox can you validate my metrics PR ?
 +
 +[17:04:47] <​purplefox>​ temporalfox:​ question... why does metrics.close have to be run on a context?
 +
 +[17:05:22] <​temporalfox>​ so the callback to the metrics SPI is done with the same thread/​context than the one it was created before
 +
 +[17:06:39] <​purplefox>​ ok, but why is that important?
 +
 +[17:07:11] <​temporalfox>​ for consistency
 +
 +[17:36:12] <​jtruelove>​ purplefox: here's a gist on the failure handler issue https://​gist.github.com/​jtruelove/​7a1a4021b1acf0960aa4
 +
 +[17:39:48] <​purplefox>​ jtruelove: what are you expecting to happen in this example, I'm not sure I follow...
 +
 +[17:40:59] <​jtruelove>​ i'm expecting the failure handler to be called
 +
 +[17:41:30] <​jtruelove>​ because there'​s no match setup for that
 +
 +[17:42:00] <​purplefox>​ and what actually happens?
 +
 +[17:42:10] <​jtruelove>​ nothing
 +
 +[17:42:27] <​jtruelove>​ the logger handler does get called but not my failure handler
 +
 +[17:42:55] <​purplefox>​ and what happens if you remove your failure handler?
 +
 +[17:43:28] <​purplefox>​ you should get a 404 anyway
 +
 +[17:43:41] <​purplefox>​ so i'm not sure your failure handler is adding anything here
 +
 +[17:43:41] <​jtruelove>​ oh yeah you do
 +
 +[17:44:02] <​jtruelove>​ well the point is to show that it isn't working not to show the value :)
 +
 +[17:44:34] <​jtruelove>​ normally i might track metrics here around failed requests for unknown resources etc..
 +
 +[17:45:03] <​jtruelove>​ if you want to know when people are asking for things that don't exist this is a way to do thaht
 +
 +[17:45:21] <​purplefox>​ i think what is happening is... the failure handler will only be called if the request isn't handled by a normal handler, but in this case it is being handled by the logger handler
 +
 +[17:47:17] <​jtruelove>​ no, that isn't the case. I take at the handler line and the same thing happens.
 +
 +[17:47:31] <​jtruelove>​ at = out
 +
 +[17:48:15] <​jtruelove>​ it returns a 404 by default of course but does not hit my failure handler
 +
 +[17:52:21] <​purplefox>​ you should be able to get what you want by adding a normal handler as the last handler, but if you could add an issue for this, someone can take a look
 +
 +[18:27:53] <​jtruelove>​ sounds good, thanks!
 +
 +[18:36:08] <​jtruelove>​ here's the bug https://​bugs.eclipse.org/​bugs/​show_bug.cgi?​id=467420
 +
 +[18:36:17] <​AlexLehm>​ i have the strangest issue when running the unit tests in a CI system. I have added a warning when a test takes more than 2 seconds and the longest a test takes is 10 seconds since it waits for a timeout. when I run the same tests on CI some tests take 80 seconds
 +
 +[18:36:31] <​AlexLehm>​ and the happens on jenkins as well as on travis-ci
 +
 +[19:44:14] <​jtruelove>​ i tested ssl with websockets yesterday with vertx3, setting up your own cert and making the browser accept it is a real pain
 +
 +[23:04:48] <​spriet2000>​ good evening
 +
 +[23:07:18] <​AlexLehm>​ what are you using to write asciidoc files? I currently use atom.io, which has quite a good preview but that doesn'​t support link: for example
 +
 +[23:08:40] <​spriet2000>​ sublime currently
 +
 +[23:08:57] <​spriet2000>​ i will give atom a try looks nice
 +
 +[23:12:21] <​spriet2000>​ Alex how is your smtp module?
 +
 +[23:12:33] <​AlexLehm>​ the preview function is actually quite good
 +
 +[23:13:01] <​AlexLehm>​ i am working througg the suggestions Tim gave, actually its coming along quite well
 +
 +[23:15:09] <​spriet2000>​ whats the difference between https://​github.com/​vert-x3 / https://​github.com/​vert-x3/​vertx-mail-client and yours?
 +
 +[23:15:30] <​spriet2000>​ ah
 +
 +[23:15:43] <​spriet2000>​ its moved cool
 +
 +[23:16:11] <​AlexLehm>​ mine is just a fork now
 +
 +[23:16:28] <​AlexLehm>​ mostly to a CI job before pushing it to the read repository
 +
 +[23:18:11] <​AlexLehm>​ irc really needs an edit function
 +
 +[23:18:23] <​AlexLehm>​ mostly to a do CI job before pushing it to the real repository
 +
 +[23:18:25] <​spriet2000>​ :>
 +
 +[23:21:18] <​spriet2000>​ how do you test to find out if code you wrote is fast?
 +
 +[23:22:22] <​AlexLehm>​ i have not done any performance testing yet, its not triggering the blocking checks, so it should be ok
 +
 +[23:24:07] <​spriet2000>​ i want to get some skills for performance testing but its difficult
 +
 +[23:24:40] <​spriet2000>​ i am not jvm expert .. is jmh a good tool to use?
 +
 +[23:25:29] <​spriet2000>​ i will plan a session for it to see if its getting informative feedback
 +
 +[23:27:53] <​AlexLehm>​ actually I think I have not done any projects who really had to do benchmarks
 +
 +[23:28:16] <​spriet2000>​ me neither.. but when is code good?
 +
 +[23:28:44] <​spriet2000>​ i really need some references