2010-02-09 06:41:17 utc |
anb_ |
Hello everyone |
2010-02-09 06:41:25 utc |
jmettraux |
hello ! |
2010-02-09 07:08:45 utc |
anb_ |
John, you found out if you wanted to drop BlockParticipants ? |
2010-02-09 07:16:09 utc |
jmettraux |
anb_: not sure yet |
2010-02-09 07:16:28 utc |
jmettraux |
it's good for tutorials and quickstarts |
2010-02-09 07:16:52 utc |
jmettraux |
anyway, it's easy to refactor a BlockParticipant into a MyClassNameParticiapnt |
2010-02-09 07:16:55 utc |
jmettraux |
cipant |
2010-02-09 07:17:20 utc |
anb_ |
agree. can be nice for debugging too |
2010-02-09 07:19:56 utc |
jmettraux |
ruby 1.9.x has a nice block.source_location, it returns something like [ 'path/to/src.rb', 129 ] |
2010-02-09 07:20:08 utc |
jmettraux |
it would be fun to "extract" the source of the block |
2010-02-09 07:20:26 utc |
jmettraux |
but 1.9.x only |
2010-02-09 07:21:55 utc |
jmettraux |
I have to fix the bug I mentioned yesterday |
2010-02-09 07:30:04 utc |
anb_ |
and I guess many people are still on 1.8 |
2010-02-09 07:30:25 utc |
jmettraux |
and their hosting services as well |
2010-02-09 07:33:47 utc |
anb_ |
true |
2010-02-09 07:36:44 utc |
anb_ |
I have a question regarding workitems. I have a participant that does a storage.put of the workitem and does not reply to the engine. I want the reply to go through a ruote-kit PUT of the updated workitem. But for my understanding, what does make the workflow proceed ? is there some field in the workitem that rk updates? |
2010-02-09 07:37:43 utc |
jmettraux |
http://github.com/kennethkalmer/ruote-kit/blob/master/lib/ruote-kit/resources/workitems.rb#L48-68 |
2010-02-09 07:37:48 utc |
tosch_le |
hi! specs are running amoc when using Ruote::StorageParticipant.new in ruote-kit :-( |
2010-02-09 07:37:50 utc |
tosch_le |
No description supplied for example group declared on /home/tsc/git/ruote-kit/vendor/gems/ruby/1.8/gems/ruote-2.1.6/lib/ruote/part/storage_participant.rb:46:in `initialize' |
2010-02-09 07:37:53 utc |
jmettraux |
just the "proceed" option |
2010-02-09 07:38:03 utc |
anb_ |
so it's the call to store_participant.reply |
2010-02-09 07:38:08 utc |
jmettraux |
yes |
2010-02-09 07:38:29 utc |
jmettraux |
Hi tosch_le : I guess you'll have to ping kennethkalmer for that one |
2010-02-09 07:38:52 utc |
anb_ |
thanks for the pointers john |
2010-02-09 07:39:01 utc |
jmettraux |
anb_: you're welcome |
2010-02-09 07:39:29 utc |
tosch_le |
i suppose it's rspec's fault. somehow, it doesn't like @context... |
2010-02-09 07:39:46 utc |
jmettraux |
tosch_le: argh |
2010-02-09 07:50:16 utc |
jmettraux |
tosch_le: those specs were added by Kenneth ? |
2010-02-09 07:51:09 utc |
tosch_le |
no. rspec complains about a missing spec description in a normal ruote method. |
2010-02-09 07:51:41 utc |
tosch_le |
and yes, i just tried to run the original specs by kenneth. |
2010-02-09 07:51:55 utc |
jmettraux |
so they were working for him |
2010-02-09 07:52:02 utc |
jmettraux |
supposedly |
2010-02-09 07:52:39 utc |
tosch_le |
supposedly. |
2010-02-09 07:53:40 utc |
jmettraux |
cloning |
2010-02-09 07:54:08 utc |
jmettraux |
1.8.7p72 for me |
2010-02-09 07:55:50 utc |
jmettraux |
FFFFFFFFFFF-fest ? |
2010-02-09 07:56:30 utc |
jmettraux |
same thing here |
2010-02-09 07:56:45 utc |
tosch_le |
https://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645/tickets/927-rspec-breaks-the-context-methods-on-my-objects |
2010-02-09 07:57:02 utc |
tosch_le |
it seems to be a rspec bug |
2010-02-09 08:09:49 utc |
jmettraux |
tosch_le: I tried to replace @context = with self.context, but same problem |
2010-02-09 08:10:53 utc |
tosch_le |
even renaming @context to @my_context doesn't help. |
2010-02-09 08:11:06 utc |
jmettraux |
:) |
2010-02-09 08:11:46 utc |
tosch_le |
rspec has a serious problem with this... |
2010-02-09 08:23:12 utc |
tosch_le |
if you're out there some time, Kenneth: I've pushed some changes to my rk fork regarding the storage participant integration. |
2010-02-09 08:23:33 utc |
tosch_le |
(http://github.com/tosch/ruote-kit/commit/9e63babe77befc5a77aa7e70e83c5c0bf25d891b) |
2010-02-09 08:39:23 utc |
jmettraux |
tosch_le: have you tried re-installing bundler ? |
2010-02-09 08:40:08 utc |
tosch_le |
is your answer related to my question on #rvm? or related to the rspec bug? |
2010-02-09 08:40:44 utc |
jmettraux |
rvm related |
2010-02-09 08:41:00 utc |
tosch_le |
i just installed it |
2010-02-09 08:41:59 utc |
tosch_le |
but thanks for the tip, will uninstall the system's bundler installation and try again |
2010-02-09 08:42:07 utc |
tosch_le |
s/tip/hint/ |
2010-02-09 08:42:15 utc |
jmettraux |
not sure it will work |
2010-02-09 08:46:58 utc |
jmettraux |
ok |
2010-02-09 08:48:53 utc |
tosch_le |
ACTION should rtfm first |
2010-02-09 08:49:24 utc |
jmettraux |
ruote-kit's README say "gem bundle" |
2010-02-09 08:49:26 utc |
jmettraux |
and it works |
2010-02-09 08:51:09 utc |
tosch_le |
depends on the version of bundler installed, i suppose |
2010-02-09 08:51:31 utc |
tosch_le |
tried the recent 0.9.3 and gem bundle failed |
2010-02-09 08:51:37 utc |
jmettraux |
0.8.1 |
2010-02-09 08:51:41 utc |
tosch_le |
but bundle install did the trick |
2010-02-09 08:51:49 utc |
jmettraux |
ok |
2010-02-09 08:52:02 utc |
jmettraux |
maybe it's time to patch the README ;) |
2010-02-09 08:53:50 utc |
anb_ |
I had problems with the gem bundle too :) |
2010-02-09 08:53:57 utc |
anb_ |
yesterday |
2010-02-09 08:54:05 utc |
tosch_le |
not only the README, but also the gemfile |
2010-02-09 08:54:24 utc |
tosch_le |
a source entry is seriously missing... |
2010-02-09 08:55:38 utc |
jmettraux |
have to escape... ttyl ! |
2010-02-09 08:55:45 utc |
jmettraux |
good job on ruote-kit ! |
2010-02-09 09:11:14 utc |
kennethkalmer |
ACTION wipes sweat from his brows |
2010-02-09 09:11:18 utc |
kennethkalmer |
hi everyone |
2010-02-09 09:11:30 utc |
kennethkalmer |
thanks tosch_le for the commit |
2010-02-09 09:11:52 utc |
tosch_le |
np |
2010-02-09 09:12:10 utc |
tosch_le |
wait for a second one (Gemfile and Readme update to bundler 0.9.x) |
2010-02-09 09:12:40 utc |
kennethkalmer |
i know, that is on my todo list |
2010-02-09 09:12:48 utc |
kennethkalmer |
bumped my head with bundler last night as well |
2010-02-09 09:18:46 utc |
tosch_le |
pull request sent, but i suppose the readme needs some more updates (bundler won't use vendor/gems anymore) |
2010-02-09 09:25:30 utc |
kennethkalmer |
i'll work through the bundler updates thanks ! |
2010-02-09 09:31:25 utc |
anb_ |
hi kenneth |
2010-02-09 09:31:34 utc |
kennethkalmer |
hi anb_ |
2010-02-09 09:43:32 utc |
tosch_le |
wow, ruby 1.9.1 is way faster than ubuntu's default 1.8.7 package... |
2010-02-09 09:44:33 utc |
tosch_le |
kenneth: specs on ruote-kit are failing due to a rspec bug with classes having a context method (like in Ruote::StorageParticipant) |
2010-02-09 09:44:57 utc |
kennethkalmer |
argh |
2010-02-09 09:46:06 utc |
tosch_le |
yeah, that's the right expression. it's (looking up the right word) tremendous |
2010-02-09 09:46:37 utc |
tosch_le |
https://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645/tickets/927-rspec-breaks-the-context-methods-on-my-objects |
2010-02-09 09:59:14 utc |
tosch_le |
kenneth: is there an important reason for pinning ruote's version to 2.1.4 in the jeweler task of rk? |
2010-02-09 10:21:57 utc |
kennethkalmer |
not at all, I should make it >= 2.1.6 |
2010-02-09 10:26:42 utc |
tosch_le |
with the new RuoteKit.storage_participant, the catchall participant isn't required for using the workitems resource. |
2010-02-09 10:26:54 utc |
tosch_le |
i've pushed some changes to my fork |
2010-02-09 10:27:55 utc |
tosch_le |
(that's why i love the Ruote::StorageParticipant.new(engine) syntax: you're truly independent of the storage participants' names) |
2010-02-09 10:29:29 utc |
kennethkalmer |
tosch_le: you are on fire :) |
2010-02-09 10:34:10 utc |
tosch_le |
maybe, but when calling _ruote/workitems from within rails, i get an Internal Server Error |
2010-02-09 10:34:20 utc |
tosch_le |
does rk some logging anywhere? |
2010-02-09 10:35:02 utc |
tosch_le |
rails is quite un-noisy... |
2010-02-09 10:40:29 utc |
anb_ |
tosch_le I just had problems calling GET on _ruote/workitems and it was because I used a trailing slash |
2010-02-09 10:40:59 utc |
tosch_le |
no trailing slash here |
2010-02-09 10:41:52 utc |
tosch_le |
there's some other problem i built in i suppose. i'm re-enabling the error raising and try again |
2010-02-09 10:42:32 utc |
anb_ |
oh I also noticed that workitems isn't available if you don't register the catchall |
2010-02-09 10:42:56 utc |
tosch_le |
yeah and that should be necessary with the updates i made in my rk fork |
2010-02-09 10:43:05 utc |
tosch_le |
shouldn't |
2010-02-09 10:51:12 utc |
tosch_le |
ah, the old ruote version was the culprit. |
2010-02-09 10:51:26 utc |
tosch_le |
when using ruote 2.1.6, everything works fine. |
2010-02-09 10:53:30 utc |
kennethkalmer |
apologies for being so distant guys, in the middle of shit storm here :/ |
2010-02-09 10:54:00 utc |
kennethkalmer |
tosch_le: i'm hoping to get the basics of /participants & /errors in place this week as well |
2010-02-09 10:54:26 utc |
tosch_le |
shit storm? sounds amazing :-) but never mind, i'll get along. |
2010-02-09 10:54:38 utc |
kennethkalmer |
thanks, appreciate it :) |
2010-02-09 11:42:00 utc |
tosch_le |
http://github.com/tosch/ruote-on-rails |
2010-02-09 11:44:04 utc |
jmettraux |
very nice !! |
2010-02-09 11:44:51 utc |
kennethkalmer |
+1 |
2010-02-09 11:45:04 utc |
jmettraux |
http://twitter.com/jmettraux/status/8851293327 |
2010-02-09 11:47:50 utc |
jmettraux |
tosch_le : rails3 ? |
2010-02-09 11:48:19 utc |
tosch_le |
no, should be rails 2.3.5 |
2010-02-09 11:48:44 utc |
tosch_le |
not familiar with the new rails yet |
2010-02-09 11:52:44 utc |
tosch_le |
any hints for the example app are welcome |
2010-02-09 11:53:05 utc |
tosch_le |
out for launch, ttyl |
2010-02-09 12:03:30 utc |
jmettraux |
happy rocket trip |
2010-02-09 12:56:00 utc |
jmettraux |
linked : http://github.com/jmettraux/ruote_website/commit/4085993ccbc944433b9875be432543579982457a |
2010-02-09 13:11:53 utc |
anb_ |
jmettraux, last question before you go to bed :) -> process variables cannot be found in workitems ? |
2010-02-09 13:12:05 utc |
jmettraux |
no |
2010-02-09 13:12:09 utc |
anb_ |
sniff |
2010-02-09 13:12:10 utc |
jmettraux |
they are engine bound |
2010-02-09 13:12:33 utc |
jmettraux |
workitem payload != engine variables |
2010-02-09 13:12:53 utc |
jmettraux |
you have to explicitely copy them in the workitem if you want to make them available |
2010-02-09 13:13:30 utc |
anb_ |
oki, thx |
2010-02-09 13:13:30 utc |
jmettraux |
does jbpm have a token payload ? (curious suddenly) |
2010-02-09 13:14:07 utc |
anb_ |
I don't think so, but you have two variable scope, process and task |
2010-02-09 13:14:31 utc |
jmettraux |
seems similar then |
2010-02-09 13:14:47 utc |
anb_ |
yes |
2010-02-09 13:15:48 utc |
jmettraux |
by using http://ruote.rubyforge.org/dollar.html#deep |
2010-02-09 13:16:02 utc |
jmettraux |
you could have all the process vars in one "container" |
2010-02-09 13:16:22 utc |
jmettraux |
it's easy to copy that in one command into the workitem |
2010-02-09 13:16:59 utc |
anb_ |
that's a possibility |
2010-02-09 13:17:16 utc |
anb_ |
but when does the dollar substitution happen ? |
2010-02-09 13:17:39 utc |
jmettraux |
when an expression gets executed and reads its attributes |
2010-02-09 13:17:43 utc |
jmettraux |
runtime |
2010-02-09 13:17:49 utc |
anb_ |
ok |
2010-02-09 13:18:14 utc |
jmettraux |
maybe I should just shut up, I don't know why you asked about workitem not seeing variables |
2010-02-09 13:18:28 utc |
jmettraux |
I don't want to confuse you |
2010-02-09 13:19:22 utc |
anb_ |
hehe don't worry :) |
2010-02-09 13:20:00 utc |
anb_ |
well I just need some variables to be seen by all participants and I was investigating using process variables |
2010-02-09 13:21:30 utc |
jmettraux |
if your participant implementation has att_accessor :context |
2010-02-09 13:21:49 utc |
jmettraux |
the worker will set it to the worker/engine context at dispatch time |
2010-02-09 13:21:55 utc |
jmettraux |
you can place vars in that |
2010-02-09 13:22:11 utc |
jmettraux |
but beware of nuking vars used by the engine/worker |
2010-02-09 13:23:36 utc |
anb_ |
I'll test what works best for us |
2010-02-09 13:23:39 utc |
anb_ |
thanks for the suggestion |
2010-02-09 13:24:01 utc |
jmettraux |
your suggestions are welcome as well |
2010-02-09 13:25:59 utc |
anb_ |
well sometimes I feel that I'm trying to reproduce one to one what we were doing with jbpm... and that's not necessarily the best way |
2010-02-09 13:26:14 utc |
jmettraux |
+1 |
2010-02-09 13:26:37 utc |
anb_ |
but it's hard to get rid of old habits |
2010-02-09 13:27:39 utc |
tosch_le |
+1 ;-) |
2010-02-09 13:27:50 utc |
tosch_le |
jmettraux: thanks for the links |
2010-02-09 13:28:02 utc |
jmettraux |
tosch_le: you're welcome |
2010-02-09 13:29:00 utc |
jmettraux |
tosch_le: thanks for all your work ! |
2010-02-09 13:33:54 utc |
anb_ |
john, I think I like the deep copy into workitem solution |
2010-02-09 13:34:57 utc |
anb_ |
but what happens when I want to copy back from the workitem to the process vars ? |
2010-02-09 13:35:45 utc |
jmettraux |
inverse thing |
2010-02-09 13:36:09 utc |
jmettraux |
set :var => 'x', :field_value => 'fieldname' |
2010-02-09 13:36:59 utc |
anb_ |
all right |
2010-02-09 13:51:11 utc |
anb_ |
when I substitute the entire Hash using $, it gives me the key/values concatenated instead of a proper hash/dict. see what I mean ? |
2010-02-09 13:51:23 utc |
jmettraux |
yes |
2010-02-09 13:51:36 utc |
jmettraux |
that's why you have to avoid dollar substitution |
2010-02-09 13:52:01 utc |
jmettraux |
set :field => 'f', :var => 'x' |
2010-02-09 13:52:06 utc |
jmettraux |
instead of |
2010-02-09 13:52:35 utc |
jmettraux |
set :field => 'f', :value => '${v:x}' |
2010-02-09 13:52:41 utc |
anb_ |
great |
2010-02-09 13:52:44 utc |
anb_ |
understood |
2010-02-09 13:53:07 utc |
jmettraux |
:) |
2010-02-09 13:55:10 utc |
jmettraux |
wayneeseguin: thanks for the RT |
2010-02-09 13:56:01 utc |
wayneeseguin |
jmettraux: of course! |
2010-02-09 13:56:05 utc |
wayneeseguin |
ruote is awesome! :) |
2010-02-09 13:56:17 utc |
jmettraux |
oh thanks ! |
2010-02-09 13:56:29 utc |
jmettraux |
not as awesome and useful as rvm !! |
2010-02-09 13:56:43 utc |
wayneeseguin |
lol |
2010-02-09 13:56:53 utc |
wayneeseguin |
People just aren't as exposed is all! :) |
2010-02-09 13:57:23 utc |
jmettraux |
how is the post-railscast load ? |
2010-02-09 14:01:24 utc |
wayneeseguin |
insane :/ |
2010-02-09 14:01:29 utc |
wayneeseguin |
I put dayjob at risk yesterday |
2010-02-09 14:01:37 utc |
jmettraux |
ouch |
2010-02-09 14:02:53 utc |
wayneeseguin |
well sortof |
2010-02-09 14:03:05 utc |
wayneeseguin |
the dayjob needs me badly so not really |
2010-02-09 14:03:11 utc |
wayneeseguin |
but that's how much time I spent on it |
2010-02-09 14:06:07 utc |
jmettraux |
take care |
2010-02-09 14:15:10 utc |
tosch_le |
jmettraux: what's the best way to set the remote_definition_allowed option? |
2010-02-09 14:15:12 utc |
tosch_le |
engine_instance.context['remote_definition_allowed'] = true |
2010-02-09 14:15:14 utc |
tosch_le |
? |
2010-02-09 14:16:06 utc |
jmettraux |
$engine = Ruote::Engine.new(Ruote::Worker.new(Ruote::FsStorage.new('work'))) |
2010-02-09 14:16:09 utc |
jmettraux |
wait |
2010-02-09 14:16:41 utc |
jmettraux |
$engine = Ruote::Engine.new(Ruote::Worker.new(Ruote::FsStorage.new('work', :remote_definition_allowed => true))) |
2010-02-09 14:16:57 utc |
jmettraux |
or by setting it directly in the storage |
2010-02-09 14:17:17 utc |
jmettraux |
conf = storage.get('configurations', 'engine') |
2010-02-09 14:17:31 utc |
jmettraux |
conf['remote_definition_allowed'] = true |
2010-02-09 14:17:38 utc |
jmettraux |
storage.put(conf) |
2010-02-09 14:18:08 utc |
tosch_le |
puh. that's not done in a hurry... |
2010-02-09 14:19:32 utc |
tosch_le |
i'm writing some lines for the ml on ruote on rails and mention launching workflow definitions served via http. i'd like to add a pointer to the steps needed to get that going. |
2010-02-09 14:19:49 utc |
jmettraux |
ok |
2010-02-09 14:20:24 utc |
tosch_le |
setting the config option at engine instantiation time is not that easy as this is done by rk. |
2010-02-09 14:20:54 utc |
jmettraux |
how can I help ? |
2010-02-09 14:20:59 utc |
tosch_le |
so either changes to rk or monkey patching is required. not really cute. |
2010-02-09 14:21:27 utc |
tosch_le |
what about a helper method within the engine to set that option? |
2010-02-09 14:21:46 utc |
jmettraux |
... |
2010-02-09 14:21:48 utc |
jmettraux |
it's local |
2010-02-09 14:22:10 utc |
jmettraux |
so I guess that engine.context['remote_definition_allowed'] = true is OK |
2010-02-09 14:22:20 utc |
jmettraux |
though |
2010-02-09 14:22:33 utc |
jmettraux |
it only affects the engine instance |
2010-02-09 14:23:09 utc |
jmettraux |
if, inside a process definition, there is subprocess :ref => 'http://xxx' |
2010-02-09 14:23:23 utc |
tosch_le |
just wanted to mention that |
2010-02-09 14:23:32 utc |
jmettraux |
and an 'other' worker executes, it won't see the remote_definition_allowed |
2010-02-09 14:24:37 utc |
jmettraux |
the most elegant way, IMHO, is at engine instantiation time |
2010-02-09 14:24:48 utc |
jmettraux |
I'd change RK |
2010-02-09 14:26:54 utc |
tosch_le |
ok. kenneth should consider that. |
2010-02-09 14:26:56 utc |
tosch_le |
or you could clutter ruote's engine.rb: http://gist.github.com/299235 |
2010-02-09 14:26:58 utc |
tosch_le |
;-) |
2010-02-09 14:27:33 utc |
jmettraux |
we could make it geneirc |
2010-02-09 14:27:35 utc |
jmettraux |
generic |
2010-02-09 14:27:54 utc |
jmettraux |
def configure (key, value) |
2010-02-09 14:28:05 utc |
jmettraux |
engine.configure('remote_definition_allowed', true) |
2010-02-09 14:28:07 utc |
tosch_le |
that's a great idea. |
2010-02-09 14:28:20 utc |
jmettraux |
engine.configure('ruby_eval_allowed', true) |
2010-02-09 14:28:36 utc |
jmettraux |
waiting for the pull request |
2010-02-09 14:28:48 utc |
tosch_le |
ok. give me some minutes |
2010-02-09 14:28:55 utc |
jmettraux |
take your time |
2010-02-09 14:29:04 utc |
jmettraux |
tomorrow morning GMT +09 |
2010-02-09 14:30:01 utc |
tosch_le |
oh yeah, it's damn late at your side... |
2010-02-09 14:41:02 utc |
tosch_le |
do you think this method needs a test? would it be a unit or a functional test? |
2010-02-09 14:42:19 utc |
jmettraux |
functional since it requires a running engine |
2010-02-09 14:49:09 utc |
tosch_le |
request sent, though test-less |
2010-02-09 14:51:18 utc |
jmettraux |
OK, I will add one tomorrow morning |
2010-02-09 14:51:39 utc |
tosch_le |
thanks. |
2010-02-09 14:51:40 utc |
jmettraux |
many thanks ! |
2010-02-09 14:57:26 utc |
jmettraux |
bye ! |