[00:00] <lifeless> bug 449105
[00:00] <ubot3`> Malone bug 449105 in launchpad "logging into sourceforge with openid breaks" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/449105
[00:00] <mup> Bug #449105: logging into sourceforge with openid breaks <Launchpad itself:New> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/449105>
[00:00] <mup> Bug #449105: logging into sourceforge with openid breaks <Launchpad itself:New> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/449105>
[00:00] <mup> Bug #449105: logging into sourceforge with openid breaks <Launchpad itself:New> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/449105>
[00:01] <lifeless> oh joy
[00:01] <lifeless> happy mup
[00:06] <wgrant> lifeless: I think it's SF.net misbehaving.
[00:06] <wgrant> lifeless: It's only half-respecting the delegation.
[00:06]  * thumper away doing emails
[00:06] <lifeless> wgrant: happens with apache2-mod-openid
[00:07] <lifeless> wgrant: which I was trying to setup last week, looks exactly the same
[00:07] <wgrant> lifeless: The proprietary Canonical fork, or an open one?
[00:07] <lifeless> apt-get install
[00:07] <wgrant> Aha.
[00:07]  * wgrant checks the source.
[00:07] <lifeless> wgrant: what proprietary canonical fork?
[00:08] <wgrant> lifeless: https://launchpad.net/apache-openid
[00:10] <lifeless> wgrant: looks to be all handed back to me
[00:11] <lifeless> wgrant: oh, and I think its a different code base anyhow - there are *two* apache openid modules
[00:11] <lifeless> yeah, thats mpopenid, not openid
[00:12] <lifeless> wgrant: (mod python openid is what we use, apache2-mod-openid is written in C I think)
[00:12] <wgrant> Ah.
[00:16] <wgrant> The author of libopkele seems to have had a vendetta against whitespace.
[00:25] <lifeless>  http://freshmeat.net/projects/libopkele/ ?
[00:26] <wgrant> That one.
[00:27] <lifeless> you're tracking down a root cause?
[00:27] <wgrant> I am.
[00:36] <lifeless> cool, thank you
[01:01]  * mwhudson lunches
[01:10] <wgrant> lifeless: c-i-p bug. It's not present in the copy that I of course didn't retrieve from lp:launchpad's history, because I'm not allowed to do that.
[01:10] <wgrant> lifeless: All the declarations in the page are fine, but c-i-p now provides XRDS for OpenID 1.0 and 1.1, as well as 2.0 (which it always has)
[01:11] <wgrant> The XRDS overrides the declarations on the page itself, and doesn't specify the identity to delegate to.
[01:11] <wgrant> Just the server.
[01:14] <lifeless> c-i-p ?
[01:14] <lifeless> oh, canonical-identity-provider?
[01:15] <lifeless> wgrant: I presume you'll put the details into my bug?
[01:15] <wgrant> lifeless: Yep, doing so now.
[01:15] <lifeless> thanks!
[01:16] <wgrant> I was very confused for a while before I noticed the XRDS link.
[01:16] <wgrant> Because identical delegation code worked fine elsewhere.
[03:17] <lifeless> kfogel: http://www.pmease.com/features/screentour/
[03:18] <lifeless> kfogel: /nice/ 'tour' presentation
[03:27] <spm> wgrant: that buildd issue - *should* be sorted now
[04:03] <wgrant> spm: Thanks. What was the issue?
[04:03] <spm> firewall upgrade and subtle funkies thereof
[04:04] <wgrant> Lovely.
[04:07] <spm> excluding the ones I did - which always worked perfectly. natch - I've never known a firewall upgrade/change to go perfectly. ;-)
[04:08] <spm> my mates at $job-1 went thru 3-5 iterations of pain trying to work with the gateway provider (as it so happens $job-2 :-) )
[04:08] <spm> where each iteration is around 5-8 hours from midnight
[04:08] <wgrant> Urgh.
[04:08] <spm> and that was *just* the final firewall to the corporate network
[04:09] <spm> not including the 4 or so DMZ ones just for their webserver farm
[04:09] <spm> each of which has 13-17 active interfaces. \o/
[04:09] <spm> I *so* don't miss working at $job-2 :-D
[08:34] <adeuring> good morning
[09:24] <mrevell> Morning!
[10:07] <wgrant> bigjools: I need some hints on writing tests for the ddeb stuff.
[10:07] <bigjools> heh
[10:08] <bigjools> you mean you didn't write the tests first? :)
[10:08] <wgrant> No, no, I am writing them first.
[10:08] <wgrant> I'm not that crazy.
[10:08] <bigjools> ok
[10:09] <bigjools> you need to figure out all the places in the code where we're likely to need to keep a ddeb change in parallel
[10:09] <bigjools> I hope this is mostly in BPPH
[10:09] <wgrant> It should be.
[10:09] <bigjools> and if not we should move code into BPPH
[10:09] <bigjools> I suspect nascentupload will be a pig
[10:09] <gmb> Does anyone mind if I set fire to checkwatches? No? Good.
[10:10] <bigjools> and PackageUpload too
[10:10] <bigjools> once you figure that out, write tests to match your expected behaviour, in fact you can probably just alter the existing ones on BPPH for copy, override etc
[10:10] <wgrant> nascentupload gets a bit hard, as BPR is immutable but BPRs will now need to refer to other BPRs created in the same upload. I guess I'll need to create the DDEBs first.
[10:11] <bigjools> hmmm interesting, what is making BPRs immutable?
[10:11] <wgrant> DB and Zope permissions.
[10:11] <wgrant> No user has more than SELECT+INSERT on BPR.
[10:12] <wgrant> Which seems sane.
[10:12] <bigjools> well we can change it if it makes sense
[10:12] <wgrant> Actually, that can't be right.
[10:12] <wgrant> Because queue overrides modify the BPR, don't they?
[10:12]  * wgrant looks again.
[10:12] <bigjools> nascentupload runs zopeless
[10:14] <wgrant> OK, so queued is the only real thing that can UPDATE BPR. I guess uploader could be allowed to.
[10:14] <wgrant> But anyway.
[10:14] <bigjools> wgrant: you probably won't need to
[10:15] <bigjools> change the sql config I mean, the uploader won't have committed anything so you're only updating the storm copy
[10:15] <wgrant> It will have flushed it.
[10:15] <wgrant> Because storeInDatabase does queries of some kind.
[10:15] <bigjools> bah
[10:15] <wgrant> I've tested this; it is problematic in practice.
[10:15] <bigjools> ok
[10:15] <bigjools> fix security.cfg then
[10:16] <wgrant> OK.
[10:17] <wgrant> Now, the tests of new nascentupload functionality involve checking state at various points over a sequence of about 5 uploads. I think it might be neatest to have it all as one big doctest, although they seem to be losing favour...
[10:17] <jml> hello.
[10:18] <bigjools> yeah, I'm unsure of which is the best direction, but possibly a combo of both
[10:18] <bigjools> hi jml
[10:18] <bigjools> did you know there was a TV station called JML in the UK? :)
[10:18] <jml> no, I didn't.
[10:19] <jml> or maybe mrevell told me once
[10:19] <jml> or twice
[10:19] <bigjools> wgrant: celso was moving towards using more unit tests as they are usually more focused on the actual test conditions
[10:19] <mrevell> bigjools: To my shame, I've told him all about the products of JML.
[10:19] <mrevell> repeatedly
[10:19] <mrevell> :)
[10:20] <bigjools> wgrant: there is one doctest that's an end-to-end test though, but it's currently disabled
[10:20] <bigjools> mrevell: ha :)
[10:21] <wgrant> bigjools: Now, this nascentupload-supertest will also end up testing for correct supersedure and overriding in the course of what it needs to do. So it's not strictly nascentupload-only. Ew.
[10:22] <bigjools> wgrant: that will be already tested somewhere (I forgot where)
[10:23] <wgrant> bigjools: So I should integrate the more specific DDEB tests alongside the existing tests for those methods?
[10:23] <bigjools> wgrant: yes, I think so, that would be the first place I'd expect to see them I think.
[11:17] <mwhudson> jml: good morning
[11:17] <jml> mwhudson, hello
[11:17] <jml> mwhudson, I just sent you an email.
[11:17] <mwhudson> jml: so you did
[11:18] <mwhudson> jml: thanks for the mail
[11:18] <jml> mwhudson, np.
[12:43] <bigjools> thumper: still up?
[13:01] <wgrant> bigjools: I see you are working on a branch to allow customisation of the first PPA's name. Does it still default to 'ppa'?
[13:05] <bigjools> no
[13:06] <wgrant> bigjools: That seems like a bad idea. The display names that people come up with are bad enough.
[13:09] <jml> gary_poster, good morning
[13:11] <gary_poster> jml, good morning.
[13:22] <jml> gmb, if I wanted to learn about how our external bug tracking system works and what it does & doesn't do, where'd be the best place for me to look?
[13:23] <gmb> jml: Well, there's actually not all that much in-depth documentation for it (I've been meaning to write some). But there are some wiki pages that are relevant. Let me find them for you.
[13:23] <gmb> jml: Also, if you want to hurt yourself. there's lib/lp/bugs/externalbugtracker/* and lib/lp/bugs/scripts/checkwatches.py. The latter is a bit of a mind-bender.
[13:24] <jml> gmb, heh :)
[13:25] <jml> gmb, maybe a good idea is for me to read what docs there are & have a chat w/ you sometime after.
[13:25] <gmb> jml: Hmm, turns out that my dream of relevant wiki pages was optimistic... I can only find https://help.launchpad.net/FeatureHighlights/BugWatches, which says nothing useful.
[13:26] <gmb> jml: Although, I did write this just the other day, which should tell you a bit about what's wrong with the current setup: https://dev.launchpad.net/Bugs/CheckwatchesNG
[13:26] <jml> gmb, thanks.
[13:46] <bigjools> wgrant: they are *Personal* PAs, and it can't be any worse than "ppa" ... !
[13:52] <wgrant> bigjools: The old default ppa/'PPA for Some User' seems better than what people are coming up with now. There are no examples for what is appropriate.
[13:52] <bigjools> why do you think it's necessary to do that though?  I'm not against it, just keen to know why.
[13:53] <bigjools> as an aside, I want to change the interface description to make it obvious that the name appears in the URL and the description in the GPG key
[13:54] <wgrant> I bet a lot of people are going to start naming their first PPA with their username.
[13:54] <wgrant> Is the display name used in the OpenPGP key? I thought it was 'Launchpad PPA for $owner'... but I haven't checked the code.
[13:54] <bigjools> from memory it is
[13:54] <bigjools> but I've been wrong before :)
[13:57] <wgrant> Urgh. You're right.
[13:57] <wgrant> That sounds like a bug.
[13:57] <wgrant> As it's now shared between all PPAs.
[13:57] <bigjools> hmmm good point
[14:51] <barry> gary_poster: ping
[14:52] <gary_poster> barry: hey are you taking today off?
[14:52] <barry> gary_poster: nope, swapping it.  how about yourself?
[14:52] <gary_poster> barry: me too, cool!  salgado has today off though.  on call will ping you
[14:52] <barry> gary_poster: np
[15:09] <gary_poster> barry: yo, let's start
[15:09] <gary_poster> barry, want to go to another channel?  #launchpad-sprint or something silly?
[15:10] <barry> gary_poster: +1
[15:10] <gary_poster> cool
[16:12] <rockstar> barry, am I safe to assume there is no call today?
[16:12] <barry> rockstar: yep
[16:13]  * rockstar has been listening to smooth jazz for too long...
[16:17]  * jml has been listening to _The Score_ for too long.
[16:33] <barry> rockstar, abentley: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~launchpad/launchpad/python-migration
[16:35] <barry> rockstar, abentley i'm deleting that branch, so nm ;)
[16:35] <rockstar> barry, okay.
[16:36] <rockstar> barry, I think abentley is off on a national holiday today.
[16:36] <barry> rockstar: oh right.  anyway the branch had a big warning that said just: MemoryError
[16:36] <rockstar> barry, eep.
[16:37] <barry> rockstar: might be reproducible by: branching off of stable; pushing w/no stacking (or with a --stacked-on that lp will deliberately ignore); wait for the puller to bomb
[16:38] <rockstar> barry, yeah, I could see how that might be it.
[16:38] <rockstar> I wonder if there's an open bug about that.
[16:47] <leonardr> adeuring, i have a question about bug 402126
[16:47] <mup> Bug #402126: top level publications must be public <lazr.restful:New> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/402126>
[16:47] <ubot3`> Malone bug 402126 in lazr.restful "top level publications must be public" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/402126
[16:47] <mup> Bug #402126: top level publications must be public <lazr.restful:New> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/402126>
[16:47] <mup> Bug #402126: top level publications must be public <lazr.restful:New> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/402126>
[16:48] <adeuring> leonardr: yes?
[16:48] <leonardr> presumably you tried to publish the hwdbapplication object as a top-level object, and it didn't work
[16:48] <leonardr> what was the failure?
[16:48] <adeuring> leonardr: I must admit that I can't remeber the details...
[16:49] <adeuring> leonardr: give me some time to reproduce.
[16:49] <leonardr> adeuring, sure
[16:55] <leonardr> rockstar, i have a question about bug 326307
[16:55] <mup> Bug #326307: Need @property equivalent for the API <api> <lazr.restful:Triaged> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/326307>
[16:55] <ubot3`> Malone bug 326307 in lazr.restful "Need @property equivalent for the API" [Low,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/326307
[16:55] <mup> Bug #326307: Need @property equivalent for the API <api> <lazr.restful:Triaged> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/326307>
[16:55] <mup> Bug #326307: Need @property equivalent for the API <api> <lazr.restful:Triaged> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/326307>
[16:55] <leonardr> what is the accessor method you'd like to publish as a property?
[16:55] <leonardr> i'd like an example for a doc i'm writing
[16:56] <rockstar> leonardr, looking.
[16:57] <rockstar> leonardr, hm, it's been a while since I wanted that.  Lemme look around.
[16:57] <rockstar> I'm sure I can find something.
[16:57] <leonardr> rockstar, thanks
[17:06] <rockstar> leonardr, how about IBranch.getPullURL exposed as IBranch.pull_url
[17:06] <leonardr> ok, great
[17:20] <adeuring> leonardr: I believe this patch re-enables HWDBApplication as a top-level publication (with access restriction): http://paste.ubuntu.com/291685/ Results in this error: http://paste.ubuntu.com/291687/
[17:26] <leonardr> adeuring: can you just except link_name from launchpad.View protection?
[17:27] <leonardr> it might be better not to show hwdb at all, but then it wouldn't show up in the wadl
[17:31] <adeuring> leonardr: any hint for how to exempt link_name from the <require> rule? A simple addition of "allow attrinbutes="link_name" leads to the error "Failed to load application: Conflicting configuration actions"
[17:53] <leonardr> adeuring: unfortunately the only way i've found to do that is to restrict every field *except* the one you want to allow
[17:53] <leonardr> there's a slight chance gary will have a better idea
[17:54] <adeuring> leonardr: that would be good. Defining the complete set of restscited attributes would not be very convenient...
[18:16] <gary_poster> adeuring: no, you can either arrange the interfaces to suit your needs better, or define the set, I'm afraid.
[18:16] <gary_poster> that's something we could theoretically improve.  if you wanted to put a bug into foundations I could see how much support there is for it.  describing what you want in a clear, compelling, and general way would probably help the sales pitch when I present it to others.  Think of it as trying to sell it to your team leads. :-)
[18:17] <adeuring> gary_poster: OK; I'll add a comment to bug 402126
[18:17] <ubot3`> Malone bug 402126 in lazr.restful "top level publications must be public" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/402126
[18:17] <mup> Bug #402126: top level publications must be public <lazr.restful:New> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/402126>
[18:17] <mup> Bug #402126: top level publications must be public <lazr.restful:New> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/402126>
[18:17] <mup> Bug #402126: top level publications must be public <lazr.restful:New> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/402126>
[18:17] <gary_poster> heh, mup + ubot3` == excitement!
[18:18] <gary_poster> adeuring: it's more of a problem in the zcml spelling
[18:18] <adeuring> gary_poster: yes, maybe
[18:18] <gary_poster> IOW, we would be redoing some zope bits to try to do what you want.  I think. :-)  eh, write up what you think you want and we'll see.  ;-)
[18:26] <mrevell> Night all
[18:47] <gary_poster> bac, are you approving CPs?  Is anyone to your knowledge?
[18:47] <gary_poster> (and hi btw :-) )
[18:48] <bac> gary_poster: i am not.  my RM powers expired a while back.  you'll have to talk to flacoste
[18:49] <gary_poster> bac ok thanks.  I figured, but was worth a check.  (flacoste's out on nat. holiday afaik)
[19:06]  * rockstar lunches
[20:16] <maxb> barry: You appear to have removed all my commentary on why particular tests failed
[20:17] <barry> maxb: dang.  sorry for the hamfisted wiki editing.  i'll try to revert that
[20:17] <barry> maxb: btw, you are very welcome to join gary_poster and myself on #launchpad-sprints!
[20:18] <maxb> s/sprints/sprint/
[20:18] <barry> right, sorry.  and changes reverted
[20:31] <EdwinGrubbs> barry: hi, can you mark this mp as reviewed so I can use "ec2 land" on it? https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~edwin-grubbs/launchpad/bug-430708-registry-windmill-layer/+merge/13148
[20:33] <barry> EdwinGrubbs: done
[20:33] <EdwinGrubbs> thanks
[20:36] <rockstar> mwhudson, when you're around, I'd like to chat with you about upgrading stacked branches.
[20:45] <mwhudson> rockstar: ok
[20:46] <mwhudson> rockstar: i'm definitely not caffeinated enough for that yet, will let you know :)
[20:46] <rockstar> mwhudson, okay.  I'm assuming we'll have to be on the phone together for it.
[21:07] <thumper> rockstar: are you working today?
[21:07] <rockstar> thumper, why wouldn't I be?
[21:08] <thumper> rockstar: the email said it was a public holiday
[21:08] <rockstar> thumper, what email?
[21:08] <thumper> the staffing email
[21:08] <rockstar> thumper, ah, well, I guess I should have read that then.  :)  Yes, I'm indeed working today.
[21:08]  * thumper runs to drop off Maia
[21:14] <mwhudson> i guess someone should look at the launchpad failures with bzr.dev at some point
[21:17] <rockstar> mwhudson, yeah, I keep wondering that.  I get those emails and wonder if maybe one of use should respond about them.
[21:20] <mwhudson> :)
[21:21] <mwhudson> thumper did an accurate summary of the failures a while ago
[21:21] <mwhudson> the part that's really sigh-inducing is the plugin api versioning nonsense
[21:22] <thumper> mwhudson: skype?
[21:22] <mwhudson> thumper: as usual i'm online
[21:23] <mwhudson> thumper: did you try calling?
[21:51] <wgrant> Intriguing. Breaking LP OpenID is Low, I see.
[22:22] <lifeless> wgrant: ?
[22:37] <wgrant> lifeless: The bug I diagnosed yesterday was marked as a duplicate, and the original became Low.
[22:38] <thumper> rockstar: I guess we are done then
[22:38] <rockstar> thumper, oops. I didn't mean to click the hang up button.
[22:38] <thumper> :)
[22:38] <thumper> np
[22:38] <rockstar> Stupid touchpad sensitivity...
[22:44] <lifeless> wgrant: meep :(
[22:44] <lifeless> wgrant: bug number?
[22:47] <lifeless> found it
[23:52]  * mwhudson -> into town, back online in a bit