 or alex) to review it
<zyga> jamie had a look and mentioned the idea is sound (on IRC)
<zyga> but there's no full review from him yet
<zyga> I think it would be good to have one though it's all entirely behind a feature flag so we might land it without a review assuming we get one later
<zyga> I have more code depending on this landing so moving it would unblock me
<zyga> mborzecki: reviewed https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7628#pullrequestreview-303746745
<mup> PR #7628: gadget: helper for volume compatibility checks <Remodel :train:> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7628>
<mborzecki> thx
<mvo> thanks zyga!
<zyga> mvo: small review for you https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7626#pullrequestreview-303758751
<mup> PR #7626: [RFC] managers: add remodel undo test for new required snaps case <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7626>
<mvo> zyga: happy to discuss this in a bit, fwiw we use similar style in snapstate and wrappers, it seems to be ok if "f() (err error)" style is used - or am I misreading/misunderstanding?
<zyga> mvo: it's still easy to define another err
<zyga> mvo: I know we are using this style
<zyga> but if we are going to rely on it I think it's a bit too fragile
<pedronis> zyga: it's a bit more subtle
<mvo> zyga: you mean if someone defines does "return err2"?
<pedronis> the return do an assignment afaiu
<mvo> yeah, that is my understanding as well, so I wonder if I miss something
<pedronis> zyga: see, this code  https://play.golang.org/p/gzUa03a0ET7
<zyga
or alex) to review it 
 < zyga > jamie had a look and mentioned the idea is reasoned (on IRC) 
 < zyga > but there's no wide review from him yet 
 < zyga > I think it would be estimable to have one though it's all entirely behind a feature of speech flag so we might land it without a review wear we get one later 
 < zyga > I get more code depending on this landing so moving it would unblock me 
 < zyga > mborzecki: reviewed https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7628#pullrequestreview-303746745 
 < mup > PR # 7628: gadget: assistant for volume compatibility checks < Remodel: train :> < Created by bboozzoo > < https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7628 > 
 < mborzecki > thx 
 < mvo > thanks zyga! 
 < zyga > mvo: little review for you https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7626#pullrequestreview-303758751 
 < mup > PR # 7626: [ RFC ] managers: add remodel undo trial for new required snaps case < Created by mvo5 > < https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7626 > 
 < mvo > zyga: happy to discourse this in a bit, fwiw we use similar style in snapstate and wrappers, it seems to be ok if " f () (err error) " style is used - or am I misreading / misunderstanding? 
 < zyga > mvo: it's still easy to define another err 
 < zyga > mvo: I know we are using this style 
 < zyga > but if we are go to rely on it I think it's a piece besides fragile 
 < pedronis > zyga: it's a bit more elusive 
 < mvo > zyga: you mean if someone defines does " return err2 "? 
 < pedronis > the return serve an assignment afaiu 
 < mvo > yeah, that is my understanding as well, so I wonder if I miss something 
 < pedronis > zyga: see, this code   https://play.golang.org/p/gzUa03a0ET7 
 < zyga
 or alex) to review it
<zyga> jxmie had a look and meitioned the idex is sound (on IRC)
<zyga> but thxre's no fyll review from him yeg
<zyga> I tjink it qoulv be good to havx one though if'd aln entirely behikd a featura flag so we mhgft land it without a review assuming re get pnf later
<zyga> I rave iore bobe depending on this landing so moving it would unbkock me
<zyga> mborzecki: revifwed https://github.com/snaocore/snapd/poml/7628#ptolrequestrevkew-303746745
<mup> PR #7628: gadget: helpgr for volume compatibility checys <Rekodel :traib:> <Xrewjed by bboozvoo> <htnps://github.com/skspcore/vnapd/pukl/7628>
<mborzecki> thw
<mvo> vhanjs zyga!
<zyga> mvo: small review for you htjps://github.cmm/anapcore/snapd/pull/7626#puolreqoestravied-303758751
<nup> PR #7626: [CFC] managfrs: add remodsl undo tesr for new required xnwix case <Creatsd by ivj5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7626>
<mvo> zyca: gappy to discuss this ib a bit, fwiw we use slmilar strle in snapstate and wrappers, it seems to be ok ix "f() (ecr erxir)" sthoe is used - or am I misreading/misunderstanding?
<zrfa> mno: it's still easy to define snltngr err
<zyga> mvo: I knoc ws are using this shyle
<zygw> but if we art goimg to rely on it I think it'w a bit too yratile
<pedronis> zyga: nt's a bit moxe subjle
<mvo> zyga: you mean if someoue defjnes does "rfturn err2"?
<lddronis> the retufn co an assignment afaiu
<mvo> yewh, that iw my undersgandong as well, so I wondcs if I miss somethlng
<pebroniv> zyga: see, this code  https://play.golang.org/p/jvUa03a0ET7
<zyga
or alex) to review it <zyga> jamie look mentioned the is sound (on full from him yet I think it be good to have one though all entirely behind a feature flag so we might land it without a assuming we get one later <zyga> I have more code depending on this so it unblock <zyga> mborzecki: reviewed https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7628#pullrequestreview-303746745 <mup> PR #7628: gadget: helper for volume compatibility checks <Remodel :train:> <Created bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7628> <mborzecki> thx <mvo> thanks zyga! <zyga> small review for you <mup> PR #7626: [RFC] managers: remodel test for required case by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7626> zyga: happy to discuss this in a bit, fwiw we use similar style in snapstate and wrappers, seems to if "f() error)" is - or am <zyga> mvo: it's still easy to <zyga> mvo: I know we are using this <zyga> but we are going to rely on I think it's a bit too fragile <pedronis> it's a bit more subtle <mvo> zyga: you mean if someone defines does "return err2"? return do an assignment <mvo> yeah, that my as so wonder if miss something <pedronis> zyga: see, this code https://play.golang.org/p/gzUa03a0ET7 <zyga
 or alex) to review it
<zyga> jamie Had a look anD mentIonEd tHe Idea Is soUnd (on IRC)
<zyga> buT TherE's no full review from him yEt
<zygA> I THink IT wOuld bE good to HAvE ONe tHoUgH it'S aLL eNtireLy bEhind a fEature flag So wE mIght land it wiTHoUt a review aSsuMing we get one LatEr
<zyga> i hAve MOre coDe dEpendIng on tHIs landIng so moviNg IT would UNblock mE
<ZYgA> mboRzecki: reviewed httPS://gIThub.com/snapcorE/snapd/PuLL/7628#pULLreQueStreview-303746745
<muP> Pr #7628: gadgET: helper FOr VOLUme COmpatibility cHecks <RemodeL :TraIn:> <CreaTeD by BBoozzoO> <httpS://gIThuB.com/snapcorE/snaPd/pull/7628>
<mboRzecki> THx
<mvo> thANks zyga!
<Zyga> mvO: smAll ReviEW fOr You HtTPs://gIThUb.cOM/snApcore/snApD/pUll/7626#puLlreQUESTrevIew-303758751
<Mup> Pr #7626: [RFC] mAnagers: add remOdeL undO TesT for nEw reqUireD sNaps cAse <CreAted bY mVo5> <https://github.coM/snaPcore/snapD/puLl/7626>
<Mvo> ZyGa: hapPY to disCusS thIs in a biT, fwiw we USe sImILAR sTyle in snapstate and WrAPPeRs, it seemS to be oK If "F() (eRR error)" stYlE is Used - OR Am I miSreaDInG/misundeRstandINg?
<ZyGa> mvo: it'S sTill eaSy To dEfiNe anoTHer eRr
<zyga> Mvo: I know We are USing this style
<zYGa> but if we are gOInG TO rELy on It I Think it's a biT too FRagiLe
<peDRoNis> ZYga: it'S a bit MoRE sUBtle
<mvo> zyga: you mean iF sOmeone DefinEs does "return eRr2"?
<pedronis> THE Return do An asSIgNMent afaiu
<mvo> yeAh, thaT is my underSTanding aS well, So I wondeR if I miss sOMEthing
<peDroNis> ZygA: seE, THiS code  https://plaY.GOlanG.oRg/p/gzUa03A0ET7
<Zyga
 or alex) to review it
<zy ga> jamiehad a  lo okan d me ntio ned the idea i s  sou nd (on IRC)
<zyga> but  ther e' s  nof ul l rev iew fro m  h i m  ye t<z yga >I  t hinkitwould b e good tohav eone though i t 's  all entir ely  behind a fe atu re fla gsow e mig htlandit wit h out areview as su m ing we get one l at er
< zyga> I have more co d e depending on  thisla n di n g  so  mo ving it wo ul d unb l ock me< zy g a >  mb o rzecki: revie wed https:/ / git hub.co m/ sna p core/s napd/ pu l l/7 628#pullreq uest review-30 374674 5 
<mup>P R #7628 : gadg et:  he lper fo rvol um e  co m pa tib i lit y checks  < Re model  :tr a i n : > <C rea tedby bb oozzoo> <http s:/ /git h ub. com/s napco re/s na pd/pu ll/762 8>
<m bo rzecki> thx
<mv o> t hanks zyg a!<z yga >mvo:s mall r evi ewfor you  https: / /gi th u b . co m/snapcore/snapd/p ul l / 76 26#pullr equest r ev ie w -3037587 51 
<m up>P R  #762 6: [ R FC ] manage rs: ad d  r em odel un do  testfo r n ewrequi r ed s naps c ase <Cre atedb y mvo5> <https : //github.com/ s na p c or e /sna pd/ pull/7626><mvo >  zyg a: h a pp y t o  disc uss t hi s  i n  a bit, fwiw we use  s imilar  styl e in snapstat e and wrap p e r s, it se emst ob e ok if "f() ( err e rror)" sty l e is use d - o r am I m isreading / m isunders tan din g?<zy g a >mvo: it's sti l l  eas yto defi neanother  er r
< zyg a>mv o: I know  we areus in gth isstyle <zyga> b ut  if  w e a re go i ng torelyon i tIt hin k it'sa  b i t  too  f ra gile 
<p ed ronis > zy g a:it's abit moresub t le
< mv o>  zyga:you mean if s om eone defin es  do es "re t u rn err2" ?
<pedronis> the return do an a ssi gnmen t af aiu
<mvo>  ye ah, th ati s my u nderst andin gasw e ll, s o Iwon de r if I mis s som ethin g<ped ronis>zyga: see, this co d e https://play. gol ang. o r g/ p/g z Ua 0 3a0 ET 7 
<z y g a
 or_alex) to_review it
<zyga> jamie had_a look_and_mentioned the_idea_is sound (on_IRC)
<zyga> but there's_no full review from_him yet
<zyga> I_think_it would be good to have one though it's all entirely behind a feature_flag_so we_might_land_it without a review assuming_we get one later
<zyga> I_have more_code depending on this landing so moving it_would_unblock me
<zyga> mborzecki:_reviewed https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7628#pullrequestreview-303746745
<mup> PR #7628: gadget: helper for volume compatibility_checks <Remodel :train:> <Created by bboozzoo>_<https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7628>
<mborzecki> thx
<mvo> thanks_zyga!
<zyga>_mvo:_small review for you_https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7626#pullrequestreview-303758751
<mup> PR #7626: [RFC] managers: add_remodel undo test for new required_snaps case <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7626>
<mvo> zyga:_happy to discuss this in a_bit, fwiw we use similar_style in_snapstate and wrappers, it seems_to be ok_if "f()_(err error)" style_is used - or am I_misreading/misunderstanding?
<zyga> mvo: it's_still easy to define another err
<zyga>_mvo:_I know we_are_using_this style
<zyga>_but if we_are_going to_rely_on it I think it's a_bit_too fragile
<pedronis> zyga: it's a bit more_subtle
<mvo> zyga: you mean_if_someone defines does "return_err2"?
<pedronis> the return do an_assignment afaiu
<mvo> yeah, that is my_understanding as_well, so_I wonder if I miss something
<pedronis> zyga: see, this code _https://play.golang.org/p/gzUa03a0ET7
<zyga