Is simplestreams spam worth having in the Log

[Curtis Hovey-Canonical]

Speaking for QA ...

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:21 AM, John Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:
> Any idea why the test would be doing 9 lookups?
>
> John
> =:->
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Ian Booth <ian.booth at canonical.com> wrote:
>>
>> TL;DR:
>>
>> A lot of the spam is necessary to diagnose when simplestreams look up
>> fails, or
>> you get the wrong tools. In such cases, it's extremely useful to see where
>> the
>> search path has looked. This was especially the case in the early days
>> when
>> published tools and associated metadata sometimes were wrong, or signed
>> json
>> metadata wasn't always there etc. That was also a time before we had the
>> various
>> validate utilities which could be used to show from where tools would be
>> selected.

While we read the stream information in the logs, I don't think it is
very informative. The wording is in fact deceptive. We see a mirror is
selected, but then subsequent messages imply streams.canonical.com is
being used. As we test and deploy new streams, we know the mirrors are
NOT like streams.canonical.com, and the messages about what is found
on that site are a lie. eg 1.22.1 was not on streams.canonical.com yet
when we tested the AWS mirror.

We bootstrap with --debug so that I catch the last message about where
the actual agent was downloaded from. That is the truth, though it is
contradicted by the preceding messages. When we must read the stream
messages, we read the last block (we ignore the repeated queries)



-- 
Curtis Hovey
Canonical Cloud Development and Operations
http://launchpad.net/~sinzui