<div dir="ltr"><div>All PRs have Travis showing green and all necessary LGTMs. The plan is to merge next Tuesday the 15th, which means it will be in core Beta 4.<br><br>Yesterday, @dalley and I published a blog post which outlines the change for users along with a porting guide for plugins to port onto RQ as well.<br><br><a href="https://pulpproject.org/2018/05/08/pulp3-moving-to-rq/">https://pulpproject.org/2018/05/08/pulp3-moving-to-rq/</a><br><br></div>Thank you to everyone for the help, collaboration, and energy on this significant change.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Daniel Alley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dalley@redhat.com" target="_blank">dalley@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>I've finished my review and resolved all of the 'blocker' issues that were uncovered during testing. Overall, I'm highly confident that this is a better path forwards than the continued use of Celery / Kombu. There are a couple of outstanding edge cases to be resolved eventually, which I plan to file as issues post-merge, but nothing serious or intractable. <br><br></div><div>If there are no objections, I think it would be reasonable to merge this code after this week's beta builds are published (after, in order to avoid major changes during Summit / PyCon prep time).<br><br>Thank you, Brian, for doing the planning and work needed to make this happen. It was a lot of effort and is very highly appreciated.<br></div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:28 AM, Brian Bouterse <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bbouters@redhat.com" target="_blank">bbouters@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>Through several rebases, now all PRs are showing the RQ PRs on Travis as passing with pulp-smash. Several points of feedback have been addressed.<br><br></div><div>If you're interested in commenting on these PRs or trying them out, please do. I hope to merge after the other taking system maintainers @dalley and @daviddavis have finished their testing/review and barring any other calls for delay or blocking concerns.<br><br></div><div>If there are any questions, issues, or concerns, please reach out, and we can talk through them.<br></div><br><br></div></div><div class="m_-381723513415461082HOEnZb"><div class="m_-381723513415461082h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Brian Bouterse <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bbouters@redhat.com" target="_blank">bbouters@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>I put together a prototype and posted the PRs. I'm still working to get Travis happy, but locally 100% of smash tests using these branches. It's worked very reliably for me so far. There are no gaps in the pulp feature set on top of RQ.<br><br></div>I hope people test it out and give some feedback. See the commit messages for details on what was done. Here are the PRs:<br><br><a href="https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3454" target="_blank">https://github.com/pulp/pulp/p<wbr>ull/3454</a><br><a href="https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/pull/72" target="_blank">https://github.com/pulp/pulp_f<wbr>ile/pull/72</a><br><a href="https://github.com/pulp/devel/pull/146" target="_blank">https://github.com/pulp/devel/<wbr>pull/146</a><br><a href="https://github.com/PulpQE/pulp-smash/pull/960" target="_blank">https://github.com/PulpQE/pulp<wbr>-smash/pull/960</a><br><br></div><div>Feel free to send questions here or to the PR. Any feedback is welcome.<span class="m_-381723513415461082m_-7663553479639357777HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br></font></span></div><span class="m_-381723513415461082m_-7663553479639357777HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div>-Brian<br><br><br></div><br></font></span></div><div class="m_-381723513415461082m_-7663553479639357777HOEnZb"><div class="m_-381723513415461082m_-7663553479639357777h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Milan Kovacik <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mkovacik@redhat.com" target="_blank">mkovacik@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">+1 I like RQ and I like <a href="http://python-rq.org/docs/testing/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://python-rq.org/docs/test<wbr>ing/</a> esp.<br>
there's Fakeredis ;)<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
milan<br>
<div class="m_-381723513415461082m_-7663553479639357777m_5711760701499117846HOEnZb"><div class="m_-381723513415461082m_-7663553479639357777m_5711760701499117846h5"><br>
<br>
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 6:58 PM, Brian Bouterse <<a href="mailto:bbouters@redhat.com" target="_blank">bbouters@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Thanks for all the discussion both on list and on irc. After more<br>
> investigation, it sounds like there are no feature gaps, but we will need to<br>
> incorporate this workaround to cancel a task that is already running.<br>
><br>
> The feedback I've heard on the idea is that it's valuable and looks<br>
> feasible, but we won't really know until we prototype it a bit. Based on the<br>
> technical outline in the previous email, I believe it can be prototyped in a<br>
> day or two. I plan to do this soon, once I contribute to a few other<br>
> required-for-beta planning items first. I'll post my PR to see what other<br>
> think of the change, probably next week.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Daniel Alley <<a href="mailto:dalley@redhat.com" target="_blank">dalley@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> I meant in the sense that, what is the aftermath when it comes back<br>
>> online, and is it screwed up in ways that cause side effects.<br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 5:02 PM, Jeremy Audet <<a href="mailto:jaudet@redhat.com" target="_blank">jaudet@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> > RQ does not support revoking tasks. If you send the worker a SIGINT,<br>
>>> > it will finish the task and then stop processing new ones. If you send the<br>
>>> > worker SIGKILL, it will stop immediately, but I don't think it gracefully<br>
>>> > handles this circumstance.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Nothing handles SIGKILL gracefully. Processes can't catch that signal.<br>
>>> `kill -9 $pid` sends SIGKILL.<br>
>>><br>
>>> If one is looking for a way to gracefully, immediately kill an RQ<br>
>>> worker, then SIGTERM may do the trick. Anecdotally, many processes<br>
>>> handle this signal in a hurried fashion. Semantically, this is<br>
>>> appropriate: SIGINT is the "terminal interrupt" signal (Ctrl+c sends<br>
>>> SIGINT), whereas SIGTERM is the "termination signal."<br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div><div class="m_-381723513415461082m_-7663553479639357777m_5711760701499117846HOEnZb"><div class="m_-381723513415461082m_-7663553479639357777m_5711760701499117846h5">> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> Pulp-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com" target="_blank">Pulp-dev@redhat.com</a><br>
> <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman<wbr>/listinfo/pulp-dev</a><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>