13:16 < bd808> Beta doesn't use l10n cache like prod as far as I know. I
think it just has a memcache cache
Version: unspecified
Severity: enhancement
13:16 < bd808> Beta doesn't use l10n cache like prod as far as I know. I
think it just has a memcache cache
Version: unspecified
Severity: enhancement
Bryan, Niklas, Sam: I have no idea how the l10n cache works. The Jenkins job https://integration.wikimedia.org/ci/job/beta-code-update/ does generate the l10n cache using cdb at "/a/common/php-master/cache/l10n/l10n_cache-ab.cdb"
Maybe a configuration setting is missing?
Based on CommonSettings.php, the config is unconditional:
$wgLocalisationCacheConf['storeDirectory'] = "$IP/cache/l10n";
$wgLocalisationCacheConf['manualRecache'] = true;
Doesn't seem to be overridden in the labs configs. Which would suggest labs is using it...
production:
reedy@tin:~$ mwscript eval.php enwiki
var_dump( $wgLocalisationCacheConf );
array(5) {
["class"]=> string(17) "LocalisationCache" ["store"]=> string(6) "detect" ["storeClass"]=> bool(false) ["storeDirectory"]=> string(34) "/a/common/php-1.23wmf18/cache/l10n" ["manualRecache"]=> bool(true)
}
beta:
reedy@deployment-bastion:~$ mwscript eval.php enwiki
var_dump( $wgLocalisationCacheConf );
array(5) {
["class"]=> string(17) "LocalisationCache" ["store"]=> string(6) "detect" ["storeClass"]=> bool(false) ["storeDirectory"]=> string(55) "/data/project/apache/common-local/php-master/cache/l10n" ["manualRecache"]=> bool(true)
}
Bar path (which is very much to be expected), this would look to be identical
(In reply to Sam Reed (reedy) from comment #3)
Bar path (which is very much to be expected), this would look to be identical
Sounds like I was talking out of the wrong side of my head then. That's what I get for not checking before I yammered.
For what it is worth, I noticed a few hours ago that the l10n cache directory on beta belonged to the wrong user (we migrated l10nupdate to be in LDAP instead of local to the instance).
I fixed up /data/project/apache/common-local/php-master/cache/l10n by running chown -R l10nupdate:l10nupdate
Bryan > should we just close this bug?