Unexpected end of JSON input

[cameronmaske]

Hi,
I've been experimenting using the fleet http API. The current configuration is running on EC2 with the alpha AMI (fleet version 0.7.1).

I can't seem to create a unit. Here is my request...

curl -X PUT -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d '{"desiredState": "launched", "options": [{"section": "Service", "name": "ExecStart", "value": "/usr/bin/sleep 3000"}], "machineId": "a4dccd55d1f34cfb858a9378858bae33"}' http://localhost:6001/v1-alpha/units/foo

This results in the following error log in journal

Sep 05 00:53:12 bla.ec2.internal fleet[596]: E0905 00:53:12.107506 00596 event.go:97] etcd watcher {Watch /_coreos.com/fleet/job} returned error: unexpected end of JSON input

I have verified the API is running (I can do a GET on /machines)

Any advice on what could be wrong?

[bcwaldon]

@cameronmaske I've only seen the error you report due to the etcd watch closing prematurely. This should be completely unrelated to the request you're making. Can you tail the fleet log at the same time you make your request to verify the two are connected?

What output do you get from your PUT request? I can already tell you've got an invalid unit name in the URL, and the "name" field may still be required in the request body as of v0.7.1.

[cameronmaske]

@bcwaldon I changed the name to foo.service in the url and added the name field into the request body, that seems to have correctly created the unit!

The output I got from the PUT request without the name field was...

{"error":{"code":500,"message":""}}

Good point on tailing the logs. The JSON error occurs ~30-40 seconds after Failed creating Unit() error

Sep 05 01:41:02 bla.ec2.internal fleet[596]: E0905 01:41:02.735014 00596 units.go:95] Failed creating Unit() in Registry: job already exists
^[Sep 05 01:41:42 bla.ec2.internal fleet[596]: E0905 01:41:42.109858 00596 event.go:97] etcd watcher {Watch /_coreos.com/fleet/job} returned error: unexpected end of JSON input

Am I right in thinking this was addressed in #869?

[bcwaldon]

@cameronmaske #869 laid the groundwork to fix #867, which will actually fix the issue you encountered.

[bcwaldon]

...well, part of your issue was addressed by #869. You no longer need to specify the name field in the body in master.