#ubuntu-quality 2015-12-30
<teward> tsimonq2: ping
<tsimonq2> teward: pong, what do you need? :)
<teward> tsimonq2: i see a test result for you on the ISO tracker from today, can you test something fairly major and then update your result accordingly?  It's a post-installation observable bug, but it's a big one...
<tsimonq2> teward: which bug did I miss?
 * tsimonq2 thought he looked at all of them...hmm...
<teward> well, it's on the Server test and I know it exists as of two days ago unfixed - https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/debian-installer/+bug/1529297
<ubot5> Launchpad bug 1529297 in debian-installer (Ubuntu) "[Xenial] 2015-12-25 ISOs (multiple ones) leave 'deb' line for CDROM uncommented after install" [Undecided,Confirmed]
<teward> ^ that's still the case according to Lubuntu which spins their alternate from Server
<teward> basically, after installation, if you boot up, does this remain an issue
<teward> i'm zsyncing the ISOs to test now :p
<teward> but if you already did the test... :0
<tsimonq2> teward: I inspected the sources.list and did an apt update, and it worked fine...
<tsimonq2> teward: I didn't see any issue with the sources.list
<teward> tsimonq2: so there is no uncommented cdrom line now?
<teward> (please pastebin the installed sources.list please)
<tsimonq2> teward: I don't have it anymore, but I do remember explicitly checking and on the top it had two cdrom entries, one had a speace between the # and the other didn't
<tsimonq2> teward: if you would like to confirm this, please do
<teward> tsimonq2: i'm doing that now, check #lubuntu-devel please
<tsimonq2> teward: and I am doing other Server installs right now, so I can pastebin the sources.list for one of those when they are one
<tsimonq2> ok
<balloons> Afternoon
<teward> balloons: howdy!
<balloons> hello! Did everyone have some nice Holidays?
<tsimonq2> balloons: heyyy it's balloons!
<balloons> hey hey indeed
 * teward tsks at tsimonq2 
 * tsimonq2 throws his hands in the air
<tsimonq2> stuff happens!
<balloons> tsimonq2, yes I was dc'd from IRC for a bit. A little disconnection time is needed every once in a while eh?
<balloons> it was mostly happenstance though. My bouncer dc'd and I wasn't around.
<tsimonq2> balloons: yeah, especially on the holidays :)
<tsimonq2> balloons: well yeah, teward is tsking at me because my script that I run before QA testing zsyncs the ISOs from the current folder, not pending, and the current folder had the server ISO that was 15 days old! So I completed a test case not knowing this, a bug didn't get reported, and I didn't see it...now I have to redo the test cases now that I adjusted :)
<tsimonq2> stuff happens :)\
<balloons> tsimonq2, so your zsync failed or ?
<tsimonq2> balloons: well current showed the date of the iso:
<tsimonq2> [   ] xenial-server-amd64.iso.zsync   15-Nov-2015 06:46  1.4M  Server install image for 64-bit PC (AMD64) computers (zsync metafile)
<tsimonq2> and pending shows:
<tsimonq2> [   ] xenial-server-amd64.iso.zsync   30-Dec-2015 06:59  1.4M  Server install image for 64-bit PC (AMD64) computers (zsync metafile)
<tsimonq2> balloons: I had an old ISO
<balloons> tsimonq2, well technically we test of current, but current not updating for that long is definitely an issue
<tsimonq2> balloons: that can be addressed? :D :P
<balloons> I get why you would want the pending iso (though it should simple fail, assuming things are working correctly)
<tsimonq2> balloons: and it has worked fine for me in the past...except for when the daily ISO build fails...
<tsimonq2> and that hasn't happened for this long before
<balloons> right, which I'm saying a failing build for that long really is it's own issue
<tsimonq2> well yeah :)
<teward> balloons: in other news: i'm back in the ISO testing world xD
<tsimonq2> :D
<teward> tsimonq2: i bet you'll run into the same issue, with Server or Lubuntu Alt, but yeah... sorry to ping you and question your test case
<tsimonq2> teward: it's completely fine, *I* screwed up :)
<teward> no worries :)
<wxl> rather your code did, tsimonq2
<teward> :P
<wxl> you could check for whether or not the version number is the current date
<wxl> but even still that may not give you the most current one
<wxl> e.g. if we get a 20151230 but then rebuild we'll have 20151230.1 and so on
<tsimonq2> wxl: it was literally a bash script that cd'ed into the directory, then zsynced
<wxl> OH
<wxl> cd into current
<wxl> so current should always be current
<wxl> perhaps you could check build logs
<tsimonq2> let me get you a pastebin link
<wxl> i wonder if you can use the lp api to query the status of builds
<teward> tsimonq2: any chance you could revise or remove your testresult then for Server?  I know I'm not the Server QA person, but until you have the valid ISO...
<teward> i'm sorry, i'm nitpicky
<tsimonq2> wxl: current version :) http://paste.ubuntu.com/14291493/
<tsimonq2> teward: getting to that :P :)
<tsimonq2> balloons: where can I find build logs for the ISOs? I didn't see them on Jenkins, but maybe I am not just looking correctly. :)
<wxl> yeah don't look on jenkins, tsimonq2
<wxl> look at Lubuntu/Testing#Timing
 * tsimonq2 is new to this
<balloons> tsimonq2, ubuntu-server/daily: Uninstallable packages:  linux-meta-lts-trusty 3.13.0.45.39 produces uninstallable binaries:   * linux-signed-generic-lts-trusty (amd64)   * linux-signed-image-generic-lts-trusty (amd64) ubuntu-server/daily: xenial-server-powerpc.iso oversized by 81137664 bytes (817803264)
<teward> hmm, I wonder if the other Server ISOs are affected...
 * teward tests i386
<tsimonq2> oh THAT'S bad, the Kernel can't be installed
<teward> ouchies
<teward> erm
<teward> balloons: y no testcases for i386 server?
<teward> did none get created?
<teward> in the off chance you know
<teward> if not i'll throw stuff in -server :)
<tsimonq2> ohh wot?
<tsimonq2> yeah what's up with that?
<teward> amd64, testcases: http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/milestones/351/builds/109542/testcases    |    i386, no testcases: http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/milestones/351/builds/109543/testcases
<tsimonq2> ^
<balloons> teward, ohh.. i386 server isn't supposed to be a thing anymore, afaik
<balloons> well, at least for ubuntu directly
<teward> balloons: ok
<balloons> we don't release it
<teward> confused, then, why we have testcases and builds for it
 * teward shrugs
<balloons> teward, historically we did.
<teward> ah, OK
<balloons> so that product shouldn't be there imho
<balloons> I think it went away a couple LTS's ago even
<patdk-wk> after 12.04  think
<patdk-wk> quality got odd, and I got lost, used to be big into testing
<patdk-wk> or maybe just before 14.04
<teward> balloons: who handles spins/respins of ISOs?  And are ISOs ever rebuilt same-day to try and resolve a crit-level post-installer failure in apt sources?
<teward> (i know the Lubuntu people might respin their alts now that cjwatson uploaded a supposedly-fixed apt-setup, but...)
<teward> (not sure who handles Server team, nor what the issues/requirements/reasons-not-to are)
#ubuntu-quality 2015-12-31
<balloons> teward, admins can respin
<balloons> teward, and typically respins are only done during milestones (or occasionally if something is really borked and they are wanting to verify)
<balloons> that typically only occurs during a milestone imho
<teward> heh
<teward> balloons: ok.
<teward> balloons: i was patient and waited for the cron respins
<teward> there was a nasty apt-setup bug where it wouldn't comment out the cdrom lines
<teward> so that could've caused headaches along thew ay
<teward> (thanks to cjwatson for fixing)
<adueppen> I'm testing the lubuntu daily image, and am noticing that the slideshow in ubiquity displays "Lubuntu 15.10". Is this known to affect other flavors?
<DanChapman> adueppen, that's normal and doesn't usually get updated until nearer the release
<adueppen> DanChapman I was suggested in another channel to report it in lubuntu-artwork anyway
<tsimonq2> balloons: umm Print Server doesn't show up: http://imgur.com/S75eSDC for test case http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/milestones/351/builds/109595/testcases/1408/results
<tsimonq2> what now?
#ubuntu-quality 2016-01-01
<balloons> tsimonq2, looking
<balloons> tsimonq2, nice catch. I would report a bug against the testcase, and we'll remove it from the suite. I suppose I could just do it now . . .
<balloons> Done. But now you know in the future
<tsimonq2> ok :)
#ubuntu-quality 2016-01-02
<tsimonq2> ooh
<tsimonq2> new builds
<tsimonq2> :D
 * tsimonq2 wants that API :D
<KenT_> Need help adding my hardware profile to the wiki table.
<KenT_> I have created the profile and uploaded it to pastebin.
<adueppen> I think the instructions for a Lubuntu Alternate testcase are out of date, what should I do?
<tsimonq2> adueppen: file a bug against the testcase
<flocculant> adueppen: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-manual-tests/+filebug make sure it includes testcase number please
<adueppen> flocculant: thanks
<flocculant> adueppen: if you do that today, I'll be notified and will look tomorrow at getting it done
<adueppen> flocculant: OK, would the testcase number be 1660 for example?
<flocculant> adueppen: could be - just look for detailed testcase information on the iso tracker test page for that test
<adueppen> flocculant: just checked, it is
<flocculant> adueppen: if it's this bug 1499059 then update it - I asked for information last October
<ubot5`> bug 1499059 in Ubuntu Manual Tests "Test case1660 refers to encrypted should be unecrypted" [Undecided,Expired] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1499059
<adueppen> flocculant: oh I didn't see that and already reported it as a new issue. I'll mark mine as a duplicate
<flocculant> just make sure there's enough information to fix it this time :)
<adueppen> flocculant: hmm that seems to be a different issue actaully
<flocculant> well - if both are issues then make sure sufficient info is available on both please
<flocculant> back tomorrow at some point
