On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:00 PM Amit Bawer <abawer@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 11:41 AM Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This is in a sense a continuation of the thread "Why filetransaction
>> needs to encode the content to utf-8?", but I decided that a new
>> thread is better.
>>
>> I started to systematically convert the code to use a unicode
>> sandwich. I admit it was harder than I expected, and made me think
>> somewhat differently about the move to python3, and about how
>> reasonable (or not) it is to develop in the common subset of python2
>> and python3 vs ditching python2 and moving fully to python3. It seems
>> like at least parts of our (integration team) code will still have to
>> run in python2 also in oVirt 4.4, so I guess we'll not have much
>> choice :-)
>>
>> Current patches are only for otopi and engine-setup, and are by no
>> means thorough - I didn't check each and every open() call and similar
>> ones. But it's enough for getting engine-setup finish successfully on
>> both python2 and python3 (EL7 and Fedora 29), with some utf-8 inserted
>> in relevant places of the input (for the plugins already handled).
>>
>> I didn't bother trying non-utf-8 encodings. Perhaps I should, but it's
>> not completely clear to me what's the best approach [2].
>
>
> A universal solution when dealing with sys.argv which could contain file paths/names in various languages,
> would be selecting sys.getfilesystemencoding() for the encoding scheme instead of a hard coded 'utf-8' [3].
> We've done something similar in sanlock python-c API for converting file-system paths into bytes, although it's in C,
> the principle of using the file-system default encoding applies there as well [4].

Thanks for the hint. Looked at this and thought a bit, and I tend to
ignore/postpone until a need arises. We already have "utf-8" hard-coded
in otopi 27 times, not sure it makes sense now to go after each and every
one of them and analyze the more-general function (or expression, or even
more complex) to replace it with. I guess this is only relevant for Windows,
and I do not think anyone is going to try to port otopi to Windows soon.

Searching for relevant keywords in google finds mostly results from around
2009-2012, which I guess was the time around which most systems converted
their non-utf-8 file collections to utf-8. A somewhat newer example (2016):

http://beets.io/blog/paths.html

So I am going to ignore this. If you think that's a bad choice, please
open a bug, and I'll handle it later. Thanks!

For now, my top priority is to get otopi+engine-setup+host-deploy work
well enough for:

1. Developers that use fedora for everything, or mix fedora and RHEL7/8
(e.g. engine on one, host on another).

2. RHV 4.4, with hosts being RHEL8.

Best regards,

>
> [3] https://stackoverflow.com/a/5113874
> [4] https://pagure.io/sanlock/blob/master/f/python/sanlock.c#_76
>
>>
>>
>> Currently, you must have both otopi and engine updated to get things
>> working. If there is demand, I might spend some time
>> splitting/rebasing/etc to make it possible to update just one of them
>> and only later the other, but not sure it's worth it.
>>
>> I don't mind splitting/squashing if it makes reviews simpler, but I
>> think the patches are ok as-is. These are the bottom patches of each
>> stack:
>>
>> otopi: https://gerrit.ovirt.org/102085
>>
>> engine-setup: https://gerrit.ovirt.org/102934
>>
>> [1] http://python-future.org/unicode_literals.html
>>
>> [2] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4012571/python-which-encoding-is-used-for-processing-sys-argv
>>
>> Thanks and best regards,
>> --
>> Didi



--
Didi