[15:01] <barry> hello everyone and welcome to this week's reviewer's meeting.  who's here today?
[15:01] <rockstar> me
[15:01] <EdwinGrubbs> me
[15:01] <sinzui> me
[15:02] <salgado> me
[15:02] <mars> me
[15:02] <flacoste> me
[15:02] <bac> me
[15:02] <jtv> me
[15:02] <danilos> me
[15:03] <intellectronica> me
[15:04] <barry> bigjools: ping
[15:04] <barry> BjornT: ping
[15:04] <bigjools> me
[15:04] <barry> cprov: ping
[15:04] <bigjools> (sorry)
[15:04] <barry> gmb: ping
[15:04] <gmb> ,e
[15:04] <gmb> me, even
[15:05] <barry> i think that's everybody in the channel at least
[15:05] <bigjools> cprov is out to lunch already
[15:05] <barry> this is probably not a good time for him, eh
[15:05] <barry> ?
[15:05] <abentley> me
[15:05] <bigjools> it usually is but he's gone early for some reason
[15:05] <barry> np, it's going to be a short meeting anyway, there's almost nothing on the agenda
[15:06]  * barry has nothing new and fun to discuss
[15:06] <barry> [TOPIC] action items
[15:06] <barry> # barry will move the preimp discussion to the ml
[15:06] <barry> i will definitely get off my ass and finish that email
[15:06] <barry> # flacoste to take discussion of rest v. moin to ml
[15:07] <flacoste> hmm
[15:07] <flacoste> yes
[15:07] <flacoste> but there was something we wanted to do first
[15:07] <flacoste> which was build a show case
[15:07] <rockstar> No mootbot?
[15:07] <flacoste> iow, convert launchpadlib to use sphinx
[15:07] <barry> flacoste: correct
[15:07] <flacoste> so, still needs to be done
[15:07] <barry> #startmeeting
[15:07] <MootBot> Meeting started at 09:07. The chair is barry.
[15:07] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[15:07] <flacoste> gary started on it
[15:08] <barry> flacoste: cool, thanks.
[15:08] <barry> flacoste: i'll update the action item
[15:08] <barry> # mars to add links for reviewers to js style guide
[15:08] <mars> I added a link to the JavaScriptStyleGuide from the reviewer's checklist
[15:09] <mars> and added some of the links I had lying around as well
[15:09] <barry> mars: great, thanks
[15:09] <barry> [TOPIC] queue status
[15:09] <MootBot> New Topic:  queue status
[15:10] <barry> does anybody have any comments on the queue?
[15:10] <barry> either PR or pqm
[15:11] <barry> [TOPIC] mentoring update
[15:11] <MootBot> New Topic:  mentoring update
[15:11] <barry> mars, rockstar, abentley how are things going?  abentley sorry i was away on monday, is there anything for me to mentor?
[15:12] <mars> barry, going well
[15:12] <rockstar> Things is going most excellent!
[15:12] <gmb> barry: mars Endured a really slow Thursday last week, alas.
[15:12] <mars> eh, I made the best of it :)
[15:12] <abentley> barry: We managed.  Warning would have been nice.  Nothing to mentor.  Do we have a contingency plan?
[15:12] <barry> abentley: sorry, i should have added a note and sent an email.  at least i remembered to update the lp calendar ;)
[15:13] <barry> abentley: contingency is to get another reviewer to mentor for the day, or i can just catch up when i get back
[15:13] <abentley> barry: No worries.
[15:13] <barry> abentley: thanks
[15:13] <barry> mars, rockstar excellent
[15:13] <barry> thanks to all mentors
[15:13] <abentley> barry: I got intellectronica and bac to fill in for you.
[15:13] <barry> abentley: perfect
[15:14] <abentley> Delaying mentoring of OCRs seemed self-defeating.
[15:15] <barry> indeed
[15:15] <barry> well, that's all i have today.  does anybody have anything not on the agenda?
[15:16] <rockstar> I do
[15:16] <abentley> barry: I was thinking about code coverage.
[15:16] <barry> rockstar: the floor is yours, abentley you're next
[15:16] <rockstar> bac and I noticed that it's rather difficult to test branches that expose the API.
[15:17] <rockstar> In fact, without getting launchpadlib out and writing our own tests, we just have to take the coder's word for it.
[15:18] <barry> rockstar: that's not good
[15:18] <rockstar> That makes me a bit uneasy, since they put my name as the reviewer on submit.
[15:18] <rockstar> Can me put some thought into how we approach that issue?
[15:19] <rockstar> It might be a conversation better suited for the ml, but I wanted to raise it in this meeting, in case anyone else had a better solution.
[15:19] <barry> rockstar: flacoste or leonardr might have some thoughts here
[15:19] <salgado> my feeling is that, in general, a new test in pagetests/webservice/ is enough for a newly exposed API
[15:20] <flacoste> i agree
[15:20]  * leonardr too
[15:20] <intellectronica> i think that it would be nice if we could have tests that use launchpadlib
[15:20] <salgado> yeah, nice to have, but not essential
[15:20] <rockstar> I think it's necessary, since that's how our user's will use it.
[15:20] <intellectronica> they could also serve as documentation for the use of launchpadlib to access launchpad
[15:20] <rockstar> blackbox+whitebox
[15:21] <flacoste> yes, there is no reason why we cannot use launchpadlib in our pagetests now
[15:21] <barry> doesn't that mean a coordinated landing though?
[15:21] <flacoste> well, actually there
[15:21] <BjornT> barry: sorry i'm late, i'm here now
[15:21] <flacoste> is
[15:21] <barry> BjornT: np, welcome
[15:21] <flacoste> we would need a new _Browser that uses the publisher directly
[15:21] <intellectronica> salgado: there were quite a few cases where we discovered incompatibilities or things that just don't work like you'd expect in user testing
[15:21] <flacoste> or do we have that already?
[15:21] <EdwinGrubbs> there are a bunch of tests that already use launchpadlib, but they are not in the pagetests directory
[15:21] <barry> shouldn't those tests go in launchpadlib doctests though (or as well)?
[15:21] <bac> intellectronica: yes, i've seen the same.  i've found most people aren't testing using lplib until it lands on staging.
[15:22] <flacoste> actually, those uses AppServerLayer
[15:22] <flacoste> which is really slow iirc
[15:22] <intellectronica> EdwinGrubbs: oh. could you please point us to them?
[15:22] <intellectronica> ah, ok
[15:22] <flacoste> intellectronica: they are in launchpadlib
[15:22] <salgado> intellectronica, the only ones I saw were corner cases of a newly exported method.  these could have been tested in a pagetest
[15:22] <intellectronica> but it shouldn't be difficult to get _Browser to access zope directly, no?
[15:23] <EdwinGrubbs> most of the launchpadlib tests are in launchpadlib/docs and there are a few more in c/l/tests/test_launchpadlib.py
[15:23] <intellectronica> also, doctests written using launchpadlib would read much nicer
[15:26] <barry> rockstar: can you take this to the ml?  i think it's something we should definitely be doing
[15:26] <rockstar> Yes sir!
[15:26] <barry> thanks!
[15:26] <barry> [ACTION] rockstar to take discussion of adding launchpadlib tests for exposed api to ml
[15:26] <MootBot> ACTION received:  rockstar to take discussion of adding launchpadlib tests for exposed api to ml
[15:26] <barry> abentley: the floor is yours
[15:27] <abentley> I'm just wondering whether we could make it easier to check test coverage?
[15:27] <abentley> I know there are code coverage tools out there.  Would it be hard to rig them into the test command?
[15:28] <abentley> The annoying thing is knowing which tests to run, since that's only in the cover letter.
[15:28] <abentley> So we couldn't do it in make lint.
[15:28]  * barry thinks there's some plumbing do this already
[15:28] <barry> but it's not too hard to add it if it isn't
[15:28] <BjornT> abentley: have you tried the --coverage option to test.py?
[15:28] <salgado> gmb did something like that
[15:28] <abentley> barry: I would be happy if this was a documentation issue.
[15:29] <mars> abentley, ./test.py --coverage might be a good place to start, but I don't know how effective it is.
[15:29] <salgado> or was it allenap?
[15:29] <barry> abentley: i'm not sure what you mean
[15:29] <abentley> barry: I would be happy if the functionality is present already and we just need to advertise it better.
[15:29] <barry> abentley: gotcha
[15:30] <cprov> me (late)
[15:30] <gmb> salgado: That was allenap, I believe, and jsk.
[15:30] <barry> abentley: maybe you can try playing with --coverage and see if it does what you're looking for.  if so then next week we can talk about how to incorporate that into reviews
[15:31] <abentley> I would like to tie this into a comparison against trunk, so we can make sure that the code introduced by the branch is all tested, whether or not other code is.
[15:31] <abentley> barry: Okay, I'll look into it.
[15:32] <barry> abentley: thanks.  i think code coverage is definitely work measuring and improving
[15:32] <barry> [ACTINO] abentley to investigate current code coverage tools for lp tests
[15:32] <abentley> barry: Bad keyboard day?
[15:32] <barry> [ACTION] abentley to investigate current code coverage tools for lp tests
[15:32] <MootBot> ACTION received:  abentley to investigate current code coverage tools for lp tests
[15:32] <barry> abentley: yeah, that's what happens on 4 hours sleep ;)
[15:33] <barry> abentley, rockstar thanks for those topics
[15:33] <barry> does anybody have anything else today?
[15:34] <barry> okay then, we're done.  have a great day
[15:35] <barry> #endmeeting
[15:35] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 09:35.
[15:35] <barry> thanks everyone
[15:35] <gmb> Cheers barry.