[gentoo-dev] app-portage/tatt: completely broken?

[gentoo-dev] app-portage/tatt: completely broken?

[Matt Turner]

Is tatt usable for anyone? Both the 0.3 and 9999 versions seem to hang
after printing the Bugnumber:

# tatt -b 576112
Bugnumber:  576112

CTRL+C gives this traceback:

        ^CTraceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/python-exec/python3.4/tatt", line 135, in <module>
    bugraw = p1.communicate()[0].decode('utf-8')
  File "/usr/lib/python3.4/subprocess.py", line 947, in communicate
    stdout = _eintr_retry_call(self.stdout.read)
  File "/usr/lib/python3.4/subprocess.py", line 491, in _eintr_retry_call
    return func(*args)
KeyboardInterrupt

I've asked multiple times in #gentoo-dev, but the lack of responses
indicates to me that no one actually uses it which would be a shame.
If it is indeed broken, perhaps we should remove mentions of it from
pages such as [1].

Does anyone successfully use tatt? Are there alternatives to scripting
this boring keywording procedure?

[1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Arch_testing_guide#tatt

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-portage/tatt: completely broken?

[Craig Inches]

Hey Matt,



On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 1:12 AM, Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Is tatt usable for anyone? Both the 0.3 and 9999 versions seem to hang
> after printing the Bugnumber:

I was using it successfully a few months ago, when I was actively
doing arch testing. So something recently may have broken it.

> # tatt -b 576112
> Bugnumber:  576112
>
> CTRL+C gives this traceback:
>
>         ^CTraceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/usr/lib/python-exec/python3.4/tatt", line 135, in <module>
>     bugraw = p1.communicate()[0].decode('utf-8')
>   File "/usr/lib/python3.4/subprocess.py", line 947, in communicate
>     stdout = _eintr_retry_call(self.stdout.read)
>   File "/usr/lib/python3.4/subprocess.py", line 491, in _eintr_retry_call
>     return func(*args)
> KeyboardInterrupt
>
> I've asked multiple times in #gentoo-dev, but the lack of responses
> indicates to me that no one actually uses it which would be a shame.
> If it is indeed broken, perhaps we should remove mentions of it from
> pages such as [1].
>
> Does anyone successfully use tatt? Are there alternatives to scripting
> this boring keywording procedure?

I dont know of any other alternatives, but I will set tatt up on my
new machine and let you know if I run into the same issues.

> [1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Arch_testing_guide#tatt
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-portage/tatt: completely broken?

[Thomas Kahle]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1501 bytes --]

Hi,

On 26/05/16 02:12, Matt Turner wrote:
> Is tatt usable for anyone? Both the 0.3 and 9999 versions seem to hang
> after printing the Bugnumber:
> 
> # tatt -b 576112
> Bugnumber:  576112
> 
> CTRL+C gives this traceback:
> 
>         ^CTraceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/usr/lib/python-exec/python3.4/tatt", line 135, in <module>
>     bugraw = p1.communicate()[0].decode('utf-8')
>   File "/usr/lib/python3.4/subprocess.py", line 947, in communicate
>     stdout = _eintr_retry_call(self.stdout.read)
>   File "/usr/lib/python3.4/subprocess.py", line 491, in _eintr_retry_call
>     return func(*args)
> KeyboardInterrupt

Sorry, maintenance of tatt has more or less stalled since I'm not
doing any archtesting myself anymore.  I'll investigate, but as
I've expressed before, I'd be very happy if somebody else would
want to take over maintenance.

> I've asked multiple times in #gentoo-dev, but the lack of responses
> indicates to me that no one actually uses it which would be a shame.
> If it is indeed broken, perhaps we should remove mentions of it from
> pages such as [1].

I'm not following IRC, please use bugzilla or the issue tracker
here https://github.com/tom111/tatt to report bugs.

Cheers,
Thomas

> Does anyone successfully use tatt? Are there alternatives to scripting
> this boring keywording procedure?
> 
> [1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Arch_testing_guide#tatt
> 

-- 
Thomas Kahle
http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomka/


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 496 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] app-portage/tatt: completely broken?

[Thomas Kahle]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1699 bytes --]



On 26/05/16 02:12, Matt Turner wrote:
> Is tatt usable for anyone? Both the 0.3 and 9999 versions seem to hang
> after printing the Bugnumber:
> 
> # tatt -b 576112
> Bugnumber:  576112

I can reproduce it.  This is most likely due to 'bugz' asking for login
credentials to bugzilla, leading to the python subprocess module
stalling.  Something changed here, as in earlier versions (of python?
pybugz?) it would still ask on the shell so that you could see what is
going on.

My solution to this was to recommend an alias

bugz="bugz -u ... -p ..."

which also does not work anymore.  So a new solution must be found to
tell bugz the login credentials.  I'm working on it in
https://github.com/tom111/tatt/issues/24

Cheers,
Thomas


> 
> CTRL+C gives this traceback:
> 
>         ^CTraceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/usr/lib/python-exec/python3.4/tatt", line 135, in <module>
>     bugraw = p1.communicate()[0].decode('utf-8')
>   File "/usr/lib/python3.4/subprocess.py", line 947, in communicate
>     stdout = _eintr_retry_call(self.stdout.read)
>   File "/usr/lib/python3.4/subprocess.py", line 491, in _eintr_retry_call
>     return func(*args)
> KeyboardInterrupt
> 
> I've asked multiple times in #gentoo-dev, but the lack of responses
> indicates to me that no one actually uses it which would be a shame.
> If it is indeed broken, perhaps we should remove mentions of it from
> pages such as [1].
> 
> Does anyone successfully use tatt? Are there alternatives to scripting
> this boring keywording procedure?
> 
> [1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Arch_testing_guide#tatt
> 

-- 
Thomas Kahle
http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomka/


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 496 bytes --]