From builds at travis-ci.org Wed May 9 13:45:43 2018 From: builds at travis-ci.org (Travis CI) Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 13:45:43 +0000 Subject: [sos-devel] Errored: sosreport/sos#2514 (master - a0410bd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5af2fb872f954_43fbb0a4723cc1975674@679e3b58-dc13-42c2-8c3e-a6de33e739e8.mail> Build Update for sosreport/sos ------------------------------------- Build: #2514 Status: Errored Duration: 20 mins and 58 secs Commit: a0410bd (master) Author: Jake Hunsaker Message: [sunrpc] Simplify enablement check and collect debug information Simplifies the enablement check to look for the rpcbind package as is consistent with other plugins and enables the plugin for Debian/Ubuntu. Also now collects /sys/kernel/debug/sunrpc. Resolves: #1222 Signed-off-by: Jake Hunsaker Signed-off-by: Bryn M. Reeves View the changeset: https://github.com/sosreport/sos/compare/501ac9583c6b...a0410bd3855e View the full build log and details: https://travis-ci.org/sosreport/sos/builds/376832047?utm_source=email&utm_medium=notification -- You can configure recipients for build notifications in your .travis.yml file. See https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/notifications This email was sent to sos-devel at redhat.com (mailto:sos-devel at redhat.com) unsubscribe from this list (http://clicks.travis-ci.com/track/unsub.php?u=14313403&id=3f6eeeaabe614219a76475d43d9205ed.%2FYqzSCHAsdWln5FGm29T5Bl3oBI%3D&r=https%3A%2F%2Fmandrillapp.com%2Funsub%3Fmd_email%3Dsos-devel%2540redhat.com) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From builds at travis-ci.org Wed May 9 13:56:29 2018 From: builds at travis-ci.org (Travis CI) Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 13:56:29 +0000 Subject: [sos-devel] Errored: sosreport/sos#2516 (master - 5dc6401) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5af2fe0cc094d_43fbb0a473de42000011@679e3b58-dc13-42c2-8c3e-a6de33e739e8.mail> Build Update for sosreport/sos ------------------------------------- Build: #2516 Status: Errored Duration: 20 mins and 53 secs Commit: 5dc6401 (master) Author: Saravanan KR Message: [os_net_config] Capture the os-net-config run time data For DPDK OpenStack deployments with TripleO, os-net-config binds the DPDK PMD driver to the interface and writes the details in to the directory /var/lib/os-net-config. Adding this directory for the report collection. Resolves: #1224 Signed-off-by: Saravanan KR Signed-off-by: Bryn M. Reeves View the changeset: https://github.com/sosreport/sos/compare/bfbb57d6bcff...5dc64012d44b View the full build log and details: https://travis-ci.org/sosreport/sos/builds/376834206?utm_source=email&utm_medium=notification -- You can configure recipients for build notifications in your .travis.yml file. See https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/notifications This email was sent to sos-devel at redhat.com (mailto:sos-devel at redhat.com) unsubscribe from this list (http://clicks.travis-ci.com/track/unsub.php?u=14313403&id=cf02f070b33d449b8fbf66a223a7d699.%2FYqzSCHAsdWln5FGm29T5Bl3oBI%3D&r=https%3A%2F%2Fmandrillapp.com%2Funsub%3Fmd_email%3Dsos-devel%2540redhat.com) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From builds at travis-ci.org Wed May 9 13:59:01 2018 From: builds at travis-ci.org (Travis CI) Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 13:59:01 +0000 Subject: [sos-devel] Errored: sosreport/sos#2519 (master - 8673e0e) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5af2fea4be21a_43faf7134127c1987660@17d78230-69dc-43b7-8af8-b82dbadca71b.mail> Build Update for sosreport/sos ------------------------------------- Build: #2519 Status: Errored Duration: 11 mins and 50 secs Commit: 8673e0e (master) Author: Pavel Moravec Message: [plugins] dont catch FileNotFoundError specifically .. since it doesnt exist in py2, while parent class OSError does Resolves: #1230 Signed-off-by: Pavel Moravec Signed-off-by: Bryn M. Reeves View the changeset: https://github.com/sosreport/sos/compare/174e72e1c9c9...8673e0eccdba View the full build log and details: https://travis-ci.org/sosreport/sos/builds/376840814?utm_source=email&utm_medium=notification -- You can configure recipients for build notifications in your .travis.yml file. See https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/notifications This email was sent to sos-devel at redhat.com (mailto:sos-devel at redhat.com) unsubscribe from this list (http://clicks.travis-ci.com/track/unsub.php?u=14313403&id=d685d8452abd4aaa9fd5e25e3fe42f57.%2FYqzSCHAsdWln5FGm29T5Bl3oBI%3D&r=https%3A%2F%2Fmandrillapp.com%2Funsub%3Fmd_email%3Dsos-devel%2540redhat.com) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sbonazzo at redhat.com Fri May 11 14:00:28 2018 From: sbonazzo at redhat.com (Sandro Bonazzola) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 16:00:28 +0200 Subject: [sos-devel] SOS release planning Message-ID: Hi, I see SOS 3.7 has been planned for October 15, 2018 according to https://github.com/sosreport/sos/milestone/9 I also see that Fedora 29 GA has been planned for 2018-10-23 according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/29/Schedule This leaves 8 days from Fedora build of sos 3.7 and the GA. Giving that sos 3.6 was planned for 2018-04-18 according to https://github.com/sosreport/sos/milestone/8 while Fedora 28 was planned for 2018-05-01 leaving 12 days from a hypothetical Fedora build of sos 3.6 and the GA, considering sos 3.6 has already 23 days of delay on the plan, I would suggest to reconsider 3.7 GA date giving a larger margin before Fedora 29 GA if you want sos 3.7 included in Fedora 29 in order to be tested by Fedora community (and oVirt community) before RHEL 7.6 GA which should tentatively come later than Fedora 29 GA (not giving dates since there's nothing official) Looking at 3.6 planning at https://github.com/sosreport/sos/milestone/8, already delayed by 23 days with still 14 issues open, I would also suggest to reconsider either 3.6 release date or push out the issues to 3.7 and release 3.6 ASAP. Thanks, -- SANDRO BONAZZOLA ASSOCIATE MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA ENG VIRTUALIZATION R&D Red Hat EMEA sbonazzo at redhat.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bmr at redhat.com Tue May 15 14:57:20 2018 From: bmr at redhat.com (Bryn M. Reeves) Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 15:57:20 +0100 Subject: [sos-devel] SOS release planning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180515145719.GC11154@localhost.localdomain> Hi Sandro, Thanks for your interest in the sos release schedule. We discuss and coordinate these things primarily through issues/PRs on GitHub, as well as the internal and external (Freenode) IRC channels. It's a good idea to join these if you're interested in the latest news about upcoming sos releases. You can also reach the entire sos team at Red Hat (rather than just me - I only handle upstream these days), by using the alias: sos-team at redhat.com On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 04:00:28PM +0200, Sandro Bonazzola wrote: > I see SOS 3.7 has been planned for October 15, 2018 according to > https://github.com/sosreport/sos/milestone/9 Those are just rough estimates: as you know, historically sos has released according to the RHEL schedules. We began a move away from that and toward timed (six monthly) releases last year but it's still in the early days, and we have a way to go before we are producing regular, timely releases in this model. > I also see that Fedora 29 GA has been planned for 2018-10-23 according to > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/29/Schedule > This leaves 8 days from Fedora build of sos 3.7 and the GA. It's still nearly six months away: we can work to accommodate your needs for this release. > Giving that sos 3.6 was planned for 2018-04-18 according to > https://github.com/sosreport/sos/milestone/8 while Fedora 28 was planned Actually this is already a slip of two weeks from the original planned date: back in March, our colleagues in CEE began a wide ranging review of sos data collection needs and gaps and this has generated a very large backlog of "RHELevant" PRs for us to get through. Since when I asked none of the distribution maintainers were especially desperate for a new release to package we took the decision to slip the 3.6 release and to try to get as many of those requests in before we make the release (as there's still plenty of time until the final 7.6 deadline). > Looking at 3.6 planning at https://github.com/sosreport/sos/milestone/8, > already delayed by 23 days with still 14 issues open, I would also suggest > to reconsider either 3.6 release date or push out the issues to 3.7 and > release 3.6 ASAP. Actually those numbers are a bit off base: we do not have lots of time or people to spend triaging pulls so unless the submitter adds a release target, or a reviewer adds one, that query is going to be a bit misleading. There are 56 outstanding pull requests at the current time: I hope to have cleared most of these by the end of the month. For RHEL8 Pavel is currently building a snapshot of the upstream tree. This will be replaced with the final release before the freeze. If you need something in order to package for Fedora then please just let us know: in the past we did these for Ubuntu if there was a need and it would be very easy for us to re-introduce this for Fedora. I guess it's too late for the f28 freeze now but we keep the tree in a releasable state and we could have released 3.5.1 at any time in the last few months if it had been requested. If you'd like to do a post-release update for Fedora 28 then of course we can make a new point release for that. Kind regards, Bryn. From sbonazzo at redhat.com Tue May 15 15:40:15 2018 From: sbonazzo at redhat.com (Sandro Bonazzola) Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 17:40:15 +0200 Subject: [sos-devel] SOS release planning In-Reply-To: <20180515145719.GC11154@localhost.localdomain> References: <20180515145719.GC11154@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: 2018-05-15 16:57 GMT+02:00 Bryn M. Reeves : > Hi Sandro, > > Thanks for your interest in the sos release schedule. We discuss and > coordinate these things primarily through issues/PRs on GitHub, as > well as the internal and external (Freenode) IRC channels. > > It's a good idea to join these if you're interested in the latest > news about upcoming sos releases. > > You can also reach the entire sos team at Red Hat (rather than just > me - I only handle upstream these days), by using the alias: > > sos-team at redhat.com > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 04:00:28PM +0200, Sandro Bonazzola wrote: > > I see SOS 3.7 has been planned for October 15, 2018 according to > > https://github.com/sosreport/sos/milestone/9 > > Those are just rough estimates: as you know, historically sos has released > according to the RHEL schedules. We began a move away from that and toward > timed (six monthly) releases last year but it's still in the early days, > and we have a way to go before we are producing regular, timely releases > in this model. > > > I also see that Fedora 29 GA has been planned for 2018-10-23 according to > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/29/Schedule > > This leaves 8 days from Fedora build of sos 3.7 and the GA. > > It's still nearly six months away: we can work to accommodate your > needs for this release. > > > Giving that sos 3.6 was planned for 2018-04-18 according to > > https://github.com/sosreport/sos/milestone/8 while Fedora 28 was planned > > Actually this is already a slip of two weeks from the original planned > date: back in March, our colleagues in CEE began a wide ranging review > of sos data collection needs and gaps and this has generated a very > large backlog of "RHELevant" PRs for us to get through. > > Since when I asked none of the distribution maintainers were especially > desperate for a new release to package we took the decision to slip the > 3.6 release and to try to get as many of those requests in before we > make the release (as there's still plenty of time until the final 7.6 > deadline). > > > Looking at 3.6 planning at https://github.com/sosreport/sos/milestone/8, > > already delayed by 23 days with still 14 issues open, I would also > suggest > > to reconsider either 3.6 release date or push out the issues to 3.7 and > > release 3.6 ASAP. > > Actually those numbers are a bit off base: we do not have lots of > time or people to spend triaging pulls so unless the submitter adds > a release target, or a reviewer adds one, that query is going to be > a bit misleading. > > There are 56 outstanding pull requests at the current time: I hope > to have cleared most of these by the end of the month. > > For RHEL8 Pavel is currently building a snapshot of the upstream > tree. This will be replaced with the final release before the freeze. > > If you need something in order to package for Fedora then please > just let us know: in the past we did these for Ubuntu if there was > a need and it would be very easy for us to re-introduce this for > Fedora. > > I guess it's too late for the f28 freeze now but we keep the tree > in a releasable state and we could have released 3.5.1 at any time > in the last few months if it had been requested. > > If you'd like to do a post-release update for Fedora 28 then of > course we can make a new point release for that. > Ok, fair enough. Can you issue a point release? There are a few plugins which we'd like to consume on oVirt on Fedora which are already usable on oVirt on CentOS. > > Kind regards, > Bryn. > > -- SANDRO BONAZZOLA ASSOCIATE MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA ENG VIRTUALIZATION R&D Red Hat EMEA sbonazzo at redhat.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bmr at redhat.com Tue May 15 15:46:40 2018 From: bmr at redhat.com (Bryn M. Reeves) Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 16:46:40 +0100 Subject: [sos-devel] SOS release planning In-Reply-To: References: <20180515145719.GC11154@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20180515154639.GB24405@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 05:40:15PM +0200, Sandro Bonazzola wrote: > 2018-05-15 16:57 GMT+02:00 Bryn M. Reeves : > > If you'd like to do a post-release update for Fedora 28 then of > > course we can make a new point release for that. > > Ok, fair enough. Can you issue a point release? > There are a few plugins which we'd like to consume on oVirt on Fedora which > are already usable on oVirt on CentOS. Sure - is everything you're wanting to include merged already? If not let me know a list of PRs or issues and I will move them to the front of the queue. Let me know and I will run our some integration tests and get a tag ready. Regards, Bryn. From sbonazzo at redhat.com Tue May 15 15:56:07 2018 From: sbonazzo at redhat.com (Sandro Bonazzola) Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 17:56:07 +0200 Subject: [sos-devel] SOS release planning In-Reply-To: <20180515154639.GB24405@localhost.localdomain> References: <20180515145719.GC11154@localhost.localdomain> <20180515154639.GB24405@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: 2018-05-15 17:46 GMT+02:00 Bryn M. Reeves : > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 05:40:15PM +0200, Sandro Bonazzola wrote: > > 2018-05-15 16:57 GMT+02:00 Bryn M. Reeves : > > > If you'd like to do a post-release update for Fedora 28 then of > > > course we can make a new point release for that. > > > > Ok, fair enough. Can you issue a point release? > > There are a few plugins which we'd like to consume on oVirt on Fedora > which > > are already usable on oVirt on CentOS. > > Sure - is everything you're wanting to include merged already? > > If not let me know a list of PRs or issues and I will move them > to the front of the queue. > > Let me know and I will run our some integration tests and get a > tag ready. > I've nothing on my radar pending merge. Thanks > > Regards, > Bryn. > > -- SANDRO BONAZZOLA ASSOCIATE MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA ENG VIRTUALIZATION R&D Red Hat EMEA sbonazzo at redhat.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bmr at redhat.com Wed May 16 09:06:16 2018 From: bmr at redhat.com (Bryn M. Reeves) Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 10:06:16 +0100 Subject: [sos-devel] SOS release planning In-Reply-To: References: <20180515145719.GC11154@localhost.localdomain> <20180515154639.GB24405@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20180516090615.GC24405@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 05:56:07PM +0200, Sandro Bonazzola wrote: > 2018-05-15 17:46 GMT+02:00 Bryn M. Reeves : > > > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 05:40:15PM +0200, Sandro Bonazzola wrote: > > > 2018-05-15 16:57 GMT+02:00 Bryn M. Reeves : > > > > If you'd like to do a post-release update for Fedora 28 then of > > > > course we can make a new point release for that. > > > > > > Ok, fair enough. Can you issue a point release? > > > There are a few plugins which we'd like to consume on oVirt on Fedora > > which > > > are already usable on oVirt on CentOS. > > > > Sure - is everything you're wanting to include merged already? > > > > If not let me know a list of PRs or issues and I will move them > > to the front of the queue. > > > > Let me know and I will run our some integration tests and get a > > tag ready. > > > > I've nothing on my radar pending merge. > Thanks OK - I will talk to a few of the other contributors and distro folks today, and if everything looks in order we'll push a tag for a 3.5.1 release shortly. Regards, Bryn. From bmr at redhat.com Fri May 18 12:16:16 2018 From: bmr at redhat.com (Bryn M. Reeves) Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 13:16:16 +0100 Subject: [sos-devel] SOS release planning In-Reply-To: References: <20180515145719.GC11154@localhost.localdomain> <20180515154639.GB24405@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20180518121615.GK24405@localhost.localdomain> Just a quick update here: we've updated our RHEL builds and have found a couple of issues so far. I'm testing and merging fixes for those today and once they are in I'll get a 3.5.1 tag pushed. Regards, Bryn. On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 05:56:07PM +0200, Sandro Bonazzola wrote: > 2018-05-15 17:46 GMT+02:00 Bryn M. Reeves : > > > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 05:40:15PM +0200, Sandro Bonazzola wrote: > > > 2018-05-15 16:57 GMT+02:00 Bryn M. Reeves : > > > > If you'd like to do a post-release update for Fedora 28 then of > > > > course we can make a new point release for that. > > > > > > Ok, fair enough. Can you issue a point release? > > > There are a few plugins which we'd like to consume on oVirt on Fedora > > which > > > are already usable on oVirt on CentOS. > > > > Sure - is everything you're wanting to include merged already? > > > > If not let me know a list of PRs or issues and I will move them > > to the front of the queue. > > > > Let me know and I will run our some integration tests and get a > > tag ready. > > > > I've nothing on my radar pending merge. > Thanks > > > > > > Regards, > > Bryn. > > > > > > > -- > > SANDRO BONAZZOLA > > ASSOCIATE MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA ENG VIRTUALIZATION R&D > > Red Hat EMEA > > sbonazzo at redhat.com > > From ylavi at redhat.com Tue May 15 14:28:41 2018 From: ylavi at redhat.com (Yaniv Lavi) Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 17:28:41 +0300 Subject: [sos-devel] SOS release planning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Adding Sarah. YANIV LAVI SENIOR TECHNICAL PRODUCT MANAGER Red Hat Israel Ltd. 34 Jerusalem Road, Building A, 1st floor Ra'anana, Israel 4350109 ylavi at redhat.com T: +972-9-7692306/8272306 F: +972-9-7692223 IM: ylavi TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. @redhatnews Red Hat Red Hat On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Sandro Bonazzola wrote: > Hi, > I see SOS 3.7 has been planned for October 15, 2018 according to > https://github.com/sosreport/sos/milestone/9 > > I also see that Fedora 29 GA has been planned for 2018-10-23 according to > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/29/Schedule > This leaves 8 days from Fedora build of sos 3.7 and the GA. > > Giving that sos 3.6 was planned for 2018-04-18 according to > https://github.com/sosreport/sos/milestone/8 while Fedora 28 was planned > for 2018-05-01 leaving 12 days from a hypothetical Fedora build of sos > 3.6 and the GA, considering sos 3.6 has already 23 days of delay on the > plan, I would suggest to reconsider 3.7 GA date giving a larger margin > before Fedora 29 GA if you want sos 3.7 included in Fedora 29 in order to > be tested by Fedora community (and oVirt community) before RHEL 7.6 GA > which should tentatively come later than Fedora 29 GA (not giving dates > since there's nothing official) > > Looking at 3.6 planning at https://github.com/sosreport/sos/milestone/8, > already delayed by 23 days with still 14 issues open, I would also suggest > to reconsider either 3.6 release date or push out the issues to 3.7 and > release 3.6 ASAP. > > > Thanks, > -- > > SANDRO BONAZZOLA > > ASSOCIATE MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA ENG VIRTUALIZATION R&D > > Red Hat EMEA > > sbonazzo at redhat.com > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tatanaka at redhat.com Thu May 24 07:45:00 2018 From: tatanaka at redhat.com (Takayoshi Tanaka) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 16:45:00 +0900 Subject: [sos-devel] Writing sos plugin for SQL Server on Linux Message-ID: Hello, I'm working on Azure support team and now writing a plugin for $subject. Since I'm a beginner of Python, I would appreciate your comments before I submit a PR. Here is a source code. https://github.com/tanaka-takayoshi/sos/blob/mssql/sos/plugins/mssql.py I'm concerned with a way to parse configuration file to specify the log file location. The location of log files is specified in mssql.conf, which is located at /var/opt/mssql/mssql.conf by default. This file looks like as follows. ``` [filelocation] errorlogfile = /var/opt/mssql/log [sqlagent] databasemailprofile = default errorlogfile = /var/opt/mssql/log/sqlagentlog.log ``` I'm parsing this file in this location. https://github.com/tanaka-takayoshi/sos/blob/mssql/sos/plugins/mssql.py#L35-L48 Is this a good way to parse this conf file in Python/sos plugin? Also, I would appreciate any comments on my code. Thanks, -- TAKAYOSHI TANAKA SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE ENGINEER, RHCA, MICROSOFT MVP Red Hat K.K. 8F, Ebisu Neonato, 4-1-18 Ebisu Shibuya-ku Tokyo, 150-0013, Japan tatanaka at redhat.com M: +81-80-4193-5143 IM: tatanaka -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hegdevasant at linux.vnet.ibm.com Thu May 24 10:49:28 2018 From: hegdevasant at linux.vnet.ibm.com (Vasant Hegde) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 16:19:28 +0530 Subject: [sos-devel] [PATCH] plugins/powerpc: Capture the opal-prd log file In-Reply-To: <152394527069.3714.1417323956136975882.stgit@thinktux> References: <152394527069.3714.1417323956136975882.stgit@thinktux> Message-ID: On 04/17/2018 11:37 AM, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote: > Opal-prd is the Processor Runtime Diagnostics daemon on Power systems > running OPAL firmware. Capture this log file with sosreport. Bryn, Looks like this patch was waiting for moderator approval. Hence I had raised pull request for this patch [1]. Feel free to ignore this patch and pull from github pull request. [1] https://github.com/sosreport/sos/pull/1295 -Vasant > > Signed-off-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli > --- > sos/plugins/powerpc.py | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/sos/plugins/powerpc.py b/sos/plugins/powerpc.py > index abf4759c..6c685a84 100644 > --- a/sos/plugins/powerpc.py > +++ b/sos/plugins/powerpc.py > @@ -83,7 +83,8 @@ class PowerPC(Plugin, RedHatPlugin, UbuntuPlugin, DebianPlugin): > "/proc/ppc64/systemcfg", > "/proc/ppc64/topology_updates", > "/sys/firmware/opal/msglog", > - "/var/log/opal-elog/" > + "/var/log/opal-elog/", > + "/var/log/opal-prd.log" > ]) > if os.path.isdir("/var/log/dump"): > self.add_cmd_output("ls -l /var/log/dump") > > _______________________________________________ > sos-devel mailing list > sos-devel at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/sos-devel > From bmr at redhat.com Thu May 24 10:55:41 2018 From: bmr at redhat.com (Bryn M. Reeves) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 11:55:41 +0100 Subject: [sos-devel] [PATCH] plugins/powerpc: Capture the opal-prd log file In-Reply-To: References: <152394527069.3714.1417323956136975882.stgit@thinktux> Message-ID: <20180524105541.GE28381@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 04:19:28PM +0530, Vasant Hegde wrote: > On 04/17/2018 11:37 AM, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote: > > Opal-prd is the Processor Runtime Diagnostics daemon on Power systems > > running OPAL firmware. Capture this log file with sosreport. > > Bryn, > > Looks like this patch was waiting for moderator approval. Hence I had raised > pull request for this patch [1]. Feel free to ignore this patch and pull > from github pull request. It will get picked up either way. Regards, Bryn. From pmoravec at redhat.com Thu May 24 11:03:16 2018 From: pmoravec at redhat.com (Pavel Moravec) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 13:03:16 +0200 Subject: [sos-devel] Writing sos plugin for SQL Server on Linux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Creating PR directly is IMHO fine, you can get better feedback there pinpointing to particular lines etc. - a code review is better to be done in github PR than via mail. Basically plugin seems ok, few points: - pep8 formatting :) - instead of pure URL with mssql.conf format, it is (also) worth explaining what the further code performs - catch exception when the config file is not present or readable - aren't you interested in collecting the mssql_conf file itself (but if so, can't it contain some credentials we should obfuscate? if so, see e.g. https://github.com/sosreport/sos/blob/master/sos/plugins/openstack_ansible.py#L30 how to do that) Kind regards, Pavel On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Takayoshi Tanaka wrote: > Hello, > > I'm working on Azure support team and now writing a plugin for $subject. > Since I'm a beginner of Python, I would appreciate your comments before I > submit a PR. > Here is a source code. > https://github.com/tanaka-takayoshi/sos/blob/mssql/sos/plugins/mssql.py > > I'm concerned with a way to parse configuration file to specify the log > file location. > The location of log files is specified in mssql.conf, which is located > at /var/opt/mssql/mssql.conf by default. > This file looks like as follows. > > ``` > [filelocation] > errorlogfile = /var/opt/mssql/log > > [sqlagent] > databasemailprofile = default > errorlogfile = /var/opt/mssql/log/sqlagentlog.log > ``` > > I'm parsing this file in this location. > https://github.com/tanaka-takayoshi/sos/blob/mssql/sos/ > plugins/mssql.py#L35-L48 > > Is this a good way to parse this conf file in Python/sos plugin? > Also, I would appreciate any comments on my code. > > > Thanks, > -- > > TAKAYOSHI TANAKA > > SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE ENGINEER, RHCA, MICROSOFT MVP > > Red Hat K.K. > > 8F, Ebisu Neonato, 4-1-18 Ebisu > > Shibuya-ku Tokyo, 150-0013, Japan > > tatanaka at redhat.com M: +81-80-4193-5143 IM: tatanaka > > > _______________________________________________ > sos-devel mailing list > sos-devel at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/sos-devel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pmoravec at redhat.com Thu May 24 11:20:39 2018 From: pmoravec at redhat.com (Pavel Moravec) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 13:20:39 +0200 Subject: [sos-devel] Writing sos plugin for SQL Server on Linux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: .. anyway proposing a patch or improvement via mail is surely welcomed and accepted. Kind regards, Pavel On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Pavel Moravec wrote: > Creating PR directly is IMHO fine, you can get better feedback there > pinpointing to particular lines etc. - a code review is better to be done > in github PR than via mail. > > Basically plugin seems ok, few points: > > - pep8 formatting :) > - instead of pure URL with mssql.conf format, it is (also) worth > explaining what the further code performs > - catch exception when the config file is not present or readable > - aren't you interested in collecting the mssql_conf file itself (but if > so, can't it contain some credentials we should obfuscate? if so, see e.g. > https://github.com/sosreport/sos/blob/master/sos/plugins/ > openstack_ansible.py#L30 how to do that) > > > > Kind regards, > Pavel > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Takayoshi Tanaka > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I'm working on Azure support team and now writing a plugin for $subject. >> Since I'm a beginner of Python, I would appreciate your comments before I >> submit a PR. >> Here is a source code. >> https://github.com/tanaka-takayoshi/sos/blob/mssql/sos/plugins/mssql.py >> >> I'm concerned with a way to parse configuration file to specify the log >> file location. >> The location of log files is specified in mssql.conf, which is located >> at /var/opt/mssql/mssql.conf by default. >> This file looks like as follows. >> >> ``` >> [filelocation] >> errorlogfile = /var/opt/mssql/log >> >> [sqlagent] >> databasemailprofile = default >> errorlogfile = /var/opt/mssql/log/sqlagentlog.log >> ``` >> >> I'm parsing this file in this location. >> https://github.com/tanaka-takayoshi/sos/blob/mssql/sos/plugi >> ns/mssql.py#L35-L48 >> >> Is this a good way to parse this conf file in Python/sos plugin? >> Also, I would appreciate any comments on my code. >> >> >> Thanks, >> -- >> >> TAKAYOSHI TANAKA >> >> SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE ENGINEER, RHCA, MICROSOFT MVP >> >> Red Hat K.K. >> >> 8F, Ebisu Neonato, 4-1-18 Ebisu >> >> Shibuya-ku Tokyo, 150-0013, Japan >> >> tatanaka at redhat.com M: +81-80-4193-5143 IM: tatanaka >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sos-devel mailing list >> sos-devel at redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/sos-devel >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bmr at redhat.com Thu May 24 12:43:57 2018 From: bmr at redhat.com (Bryn M. Reeves) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 13:43:57 +0100 Subject: [sos-devel] Writing sos plugin for SQL Server on Linux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180524124357.GF28381@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 01:03:16PM +0200, Pavel Moravec wrote: > Creating PR directly is IMHO fine, you can get better feedback there > pinpointing to particular lines etc. - a code review is better to be done > in github PR than via mail. We allow either ;) Personally, I'm a bit sad that everything has shifted to GitHub, because I think that email provides a more natural format to have a conversation: no vanishing diffs, no "outdated comments".. just good ol' fashioned email. > - instead of pure URL with mssql.conf format, it is (also) worth explaining > what the further code performs I'm not sure the URL is actually all that useful here; it's an INI file from which we want to obtain two keys. If anything just a brief comment explaining those two keys would seem sufficient. Regards, Bryn. From tatanaka at redhat.com Mon May 28 07:52:02 2018 From: tatanaka at redhat.com (Takayoshi Tanaka) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 16:52:02 +0900 Subject: [sos-devel] Writing sos plugin for SQL Server on Linux In-Reply-To: <20180524124357.GF28381@localhost.localdomain> References: <20180524124357.GF28381@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: Thanks all, I have updated the code based on your advice. https://github.com/tanaka-takayoshi/sos/blob/mssql/sos/plugins/mssql.py After I complete some tests, I'll make a pull request to GitHub. On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 9:43 PM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 01:03:16PM +0200, Pavel Moravec wrote: > > Creating PR directly is IMHO fine, you can get better feedback there > > pinpointing to particular lines etc. - a code review is better to be done > > in github PR than via mail. > > We allow either ;) > > Personally, I'm a bit sad that everything has shifted to GitHub, > because I think that email provides a more natural format to have > a conversation: no vanishing diffs, no "outdated comments".. just > good ol' fashioned email. > > > - instead of pure URL with mssql.conf format, it is (also) worth > explaining > > what the further code performs > > I'm not sure the URL is actually all that useful here; it's an INI > file from which we want to obtain two keys. > > If anything just a brief comment explaining those two keys would > seem sufficient. > > Regards, > Bryn. > > -- TAKAYOSHI TANAKA SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE ENGINEER, RHCA, MICROSOFT MVP Red Hat K.K. 8F, Ebisu Neonato, 4-1-18 Ebisu Shibuya-ku Tokyo, 150-0013, Japan tatanaka at redhat.com M: +81-80-4193-5143 IM: tatanaka -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bmr at redhat.com Tue May 29 09:55:37 2018 From: bmr at redhat.com (Bryn M. Reeves) Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 10:55:37 +0100 Subject: [sos-devel] [ANNOUNCE] sos-3.5.1 is released Message-ID: <20180529095536.GB12168@localhost.localdomain> The sos team is pleased to announce the release of sos-3.5.1. This is a maintenance release containing a number of enhancements, new features, and bug fixes, including: * 22 new plugins: - alternatives, ansible, btrfs, buildah, clear_containers, date, fibrechannel, host, kata_containers, lustre, memcached, networkmanager, nvme, opendaylight, openstack_octavia, ovirt_provider_ovn, ovn_central, ovn_host, rear, release runc, wireless * New profiles (including containers and the Apache webserver) * major enhancements to core features and existing plugins: * better package manager version information * fixed exit status propagation * deprecated optparse replaced with argparse * better error handling during interactive prompting * allow journal collection by identifier * allow collection of journal message catalogs * support for collecting binary file data * more fine-grained system plugins (date etc.) * policy defined report file name patterns - more human-readable report file names by default * support for forbidden path lists and forbid logging * support for enabling plugins by kernel module name * support for enabling plugins by executable name * support for collecting eBPF (bpftool) data * support for device information via add_udev_info() * optional collection of the RPMDB * default log size increased from 10MiB to 25MiB * string decoding fixes * improved debug logging and ENOSPC handling * OpenShift 3.10 support * Python3 fixes This release allows distribution packagers to update to a new upstream release before the final release of 3.6. The 3.6 release will include further enhancements in core `sosreport` functionality and is planned for late June 2018. https://github.com/sosreport/sos/releases/tag/3.5.1 Please report any problems to the sos-devel mailing list, or via the GitHub issue tracker: https://github.com/sosreport/sos/issues/ Regards, Bryn.