-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix curl error #7
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
@UnrealAkama Can you merge this in? 👀 |
Sorry about this, life has been a bit crazy, I fixed what I think is the last bug in this and have updated test release. I'm going to give it a try this weekend and make sure everything works but you should be able to use the binaries in that release to replace the current ones and test it out. |
@akringwood thanks! we set it up yesterday to initially great success, but now we're getting this error pretty frequently:
Any ideas? |
Hmmm, that's odd, it seems like the agent isn't starting reliably. Normally that's due to me forgetting to set the bins acl to public so that the agents can access it cause they have to bootstrap themselves. We are using this as well and aren't seeing it so let me do some testing and figure out what I can see. You can also log onto the makecloud nodes themselves by adjusting the key in the mc_settings file and then sshing into the box once you've left it alive with |
@@ -229,13 +229,14 @@ module Aws : Provider_template.Provider = struct | |||
process_response resp | |||
in | |||
let%lwt _resp, body = | |||
match%lwt repeat_until_ok send_command 10 with | |||
match%lwt repeat_until_ok send_command 60 with |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this is good!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM when I scanned it, we shipped this out to before right? or are we not using this?
Yeah, we've been using a build from this branch, built before this timing change |
| Error _ -> | ||
failwith | ||
| Error (`Msg message, note) -> | ||
Lwt.fail_with (Fmt.str |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we leave this as failwith
(or even Fmt.failwith
)? The lwt docs mention that it might be better to prefer failwith
over Lwt.fail_with
if we don't attempt to store or catch the rejected promise further up the chain since failwith
will result in the runtime recording the backtrace.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fair question. In theory using the Lwt ppx should give decent backtraces. But that's not happening here so something is missing somewhere.
No description provided.