15:31:59 <acozine> #startmeeting Ansible Documentation Working Group
15:31:59 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Nov 20 15:31:59 2018 UTC.
15:31:59 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
15:31:59 <zodbot> The chair is acozine. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:31:59 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:31:59 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'ansible_documentation_working_group'
15:33:03 <acozine> I don't have much experience with the mechanics of IRC meetings, so today will be an experiment
15:33:13 <acozine> #chair
15:33:13 <zodbot> Current chairs: acozine
15:33:23 <acozine> #chair samccann gundalow bcoca
15:33:23 <zodbot> Current chairs: acozine bcoca gundalow samccann
15:33:29 <acozine> who else is around?
15:33:39 <samccann> o/
15:33:51 <bcoca> lurkers will appear when they have input
15:34:16 * acozine sets up searchlight
15:35:15 <acozine> today's first topic is the loop docs
15:36:00 <acozine> we've got an open PR from our meeting a few weeks back that updates the main loop page, and a few open PRs that change specific examples elsewhere in the documentation from `with_*` to `loop`
15:36:21 <acozine> main loop page update PR: https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/47895
15:37:13 <acozine> full list of PRs with "loop" in the title: https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3Adocs+loop+in%3Atitle
15:39:35 <acozine> there's a comment on PR 47895 that hasn't been addressed - and I think if we can address it, we can decide on all the other PRs
15:40:43 <acozine> in other words, once we can define and recognize use cases that should continue to use `with_*`, we can either merge or close the rest of the PRs that update `with_*` to `loop`
15:41:36 <acozine> the comment is: https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/47895/files#r229865255
15:41:41 <acozine> thoughts?
15:42:02 <acozine> #topic documenting loops
15:44:59 <acozine> okay, let's look at one of the specific examples - should this one be changed from `with_items` to `loop`? https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/47215/files
15:47:11 * gundalow waves
15:47:17 <gundalow> in another meeting
15:47:35 <samccann> there's a warning in the  main loop page update that says be careful changing with_items to loops because of the implicit flatten
15:48:08 <samccann> I'd be inclind to say we shouldn't change this in PR 47215 because we don't know what's in foo.
15:48:17 <samccann> (inclined)
15:48:37 <acozine> yeah, and I don't entirely understand that - it would be great to have an example task, contrasting what happens if you use `with_items` and what happens if you use `loop`
15:49:11 <acozine> anybody have a good example?
15:50:12 <samccann> didn't someone talk about that a bit back, with an example? that if foo was a list of families, and it ended up something like [samccann, [acozine,mrMan,MrCat],gundalow]
15:50:33 <samccann> that with items flattens that to 5 items. but loop treats it as only three?
15:50:45 * samccann barely knows what she's talking about here...just so's ya know
15:50:55 <acozine> that sounds like a great example - was that here in IRC?
15:51:22 <samccann> i'm not sure. I just know someone else said something like that 'somewheres' and it made sense to me
15:51:53 <samccann> might be time to just experiment offline w/ a task that does something like that and displays the result to show the difference?
15:51:56 <acozine> gotcha - well, it's enough info for us to construct an experiment from
15:52:06 <acozine> samccann: exactly
15:52:29 <acozine> okay, let's see if any of the other proposed changes use something other than `with_items`
15:53:42 <samccann> gosh they are mostly replacing `with_items`
15:53:45 <acozine> hm, nope, they're all `with_items`
15:54:02 <acozine> I wonder if we have examples of any of the other `with_` lookups?
15:54:29 <samccann> my nickel - we do our experiment, update the main loop page with  the results, and close these other prs with a pointer to that to show why we don't want to change
15:54:59 <samccann> unless we can see in each of those other PRs some specific evidence that the with_items is a single list, not..erm.. nested?? (not using the correct terms here)
15:55:03 <acozine> agreed - though we might be able to change one or two of them, depending on what kind of data they're likely to use
15:55:18 <samccann> yeah, that's a better way of saying it :-)
15:55:28 <acozine> okay . . . progress
15:56:13 <samccann> still leaves us w bcoca 's original comment on the main loop page
15:56:30 <samccann> https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/47895/files#r229865255
15:56:33 <acozine> #agreed samccann and acozine to experiment with silly-but-easily-understandable data
15:56:52 <samccann> which flies so far over my head I'm not even feelin the breeze as it goes by :-)
15:57:50 <acozine> bcoca: could you restate the comment, or offer an example?
15:58:50 <acozine> what would someone be doing that would require multiple lookups in a loop?
16:01:51 <acozine> it's mighty quiet here today
16:02:35 <samccann> Turkey week in the US :-)
16:03:12 <acozine> yeah, lots of folks away, plus whatever other meeting gundalow is in going on - let's make this week's DaWG meeting a short one
16:03:19 <acozine> #topic open floor
16:03:38 <acozine> anybody been lurking so far, with a burning topic to discuss?
16:04:30 <acozine> hi Delph_
16:05:20 <acozine> okay, let's hold over the other agenda items for next week
16:05:37 <acozine> happy Thanksgiving to those who celebrate it!
16:06:16 <acozine> hearing no other topics . . .
16:06:29 <acozine> #endmeeting