[14:01]  * sinzui looks about
[14:01] <sinzui> #startmeeting
[14:01] <sinzui> hello everyone and welcome to this week's ameu reviewers meeting.  who's here today?
[14:01] <MootBot> Meeting started at 09:01. The chair is sinzui.
[14:01] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[14:02] <abentley> me
[14:02] <flacoste> me
[14:02] <EdwinGrubbs> me
[14:02] <sinzui> hmm, we may be an hour early
[14:02] <gary_poster> me
[14:02] <salgado> me
[14:02] <intellectronica> me
[14:02] <salgado> sinzui, I don't think so
[14:02] <henninge> me
[14:02] <al-maisan> me
[14:03] <deryck> me
[14:03] <henninge> danilo has a bed headache so he might not come.
[14:03] <adeuring> me
[14:03] <henninge> s/bed/bad/
[14:03] <henninge> dunno if he's in bed ...
[14:04] <sinzui> we all have laptops. I assume that some of you are attending this meeting from your bed in you pajamas
[14:05] <sinzui> [TOPIC] agenda
[14:05] <sinzui> * Roll call
[14:05] <sinzui> * Action items
[14:05] <sinzui> * UI review call update
[14:05] <sinzui> * Peanut gallery
[14:05] <MootBot> New Topic:  agenda
[14:05] <intellectronica> pyjamas are a redundant nicety
[14:05] <sinzui> [Topic] Action items
[14:05] <MootBot> New Topic:  Action items
[14:05] <sinzui> * barry to get with mrevell on guidelines migration from old wiki to new
[14:05] <sinzui> ^ I do not think this has happened
[14:06] <mrevell> No, it hasn't. My apologies, it's still on my "to do"
[14:06] <sinzui> mrevell: thanks
[14:06] <sinzui> I will keep it on the agrenda
[14:06] <sinzui> * intellectronica and barry to draft guidelines for drive-by cleanups
[14:06] <intellectronica> sorry, i didn't find the time to do this. please keep it on the list, i will do it next week when there's a bit more time
[14:06] <sinzui> I will
[14:06] <sinzui> [Topic] UI review call update
[14:06] <MootBot> New Topic:  UI review call update
[14:07] <sinzui> Gosh this weeks meeting was pretty quick.
[14:08] <intellectronica> yeah, the only interesting item was about helping developers get up to speed with integrating widgets
[14:08] <intellectronica> we decided to talk to tim, who reported some difficulties and has started documenting the process
[14:09] <intellectronica> if any developer still hasn't done any integration work for lazr js widgets, and wants some help and/or wants to help documenting the steps they take, you are most welcome
[14:09] <sinzui> thanks intellectronica.
[14:10] <sinzui> [Topic] Peanut gallery
[14:10] <MootBot> New Topic:  Peanut gallery
[14:10] <intellectronica> b.t.w francis regularly sends meeting notes for that call now. do we really need this section in this meeting?
[14:10] <sinzui> Indeed I was looking at those notes
[14:11] <sinzui> I think we are only concerned that the team is reading them
[14:11] <intellectronica> we can do a quiz
[14:12] <sinzui> lightning reviews of the week that was
[14:12] <intellectronica> thanks sinzui, you should always chair ;)
[14:12] <sinzui> I'll bring this matter up with the antipodeans.
[14:13] <sinzui> As I think about all the talent whose attention I assume I have, I want advice on how to test something I have seen in reviews.
[14:13] <allenap> me
[14:14] <sinzui> I do not like story tests that verify a link it not present; they are not a part of the story
[14:15] <sinzui> We have tales formatters that ensure the links is rendered correctly (or not at all) and we have permission decorators for links
[14:15] <sinzui> So as long as the link is defined correctly and the approved formatter is used, I do not want to vague test that some user does not see the link...
[14:16] <sinzui> But there is a problem with out links and views that we are *not* tesing
[14:16] <sinzui> lp.testing.menu has a helper that will verify all the links in the menu have a view. During the 3.0 release I found many that did not!
[14:17] <sinzui> I used the helper to find and remove the bad links
[14:17] <sinzui> Last week I found a new problem that I do not know how to test...
[14:17] <sinzui> We have links and views that disagree about permission.
[14:18] <sinzui> eg. the link is public, the view is edit.
[14:19] <sinzui> in my case, though, there was a companion view that as launchpad.View. I had to audit many links and views.
[14:19] <sinzui> Q: Is it possible to test that a link and its view have the same permission?
[14:19]  * sinzui thanks everyone for their patience
[14:21] <adeuring> sinzui: perhaps I'm missing your point why tests for non-existence in stories are bad (for yure they are noisy), but they can ensure that the right permission decorator is used.
[14:21] <adeuring> ...non-existience of links...
[14:21] <sinzui> adeuring: checking for non-existence in a story is wrong.
[14:23] <adeuring> sinzui:  where else would you do do this test?
[14:23] <sinzui> adeuring: we can test the links elsewhere. in fact, the menu helper could be used to verify all links for permission, but that will not help with the link to view permission
[14:24] <sinzui> adeuring: testing contract and implementation details belong in browser/tests
[14:24] <adeuring> ok
[14:24] <intellectronica> sinzui: i think i understand why you dislike testing this kind of stuff in stories, but you should consider the benefits. i think they outweigh the problems with this approach
[14:25] <intellectronica> doctests are easier to write and read, and most importantly much much easier to maintain, because they include a lot more context
[14:25] <sinzui> The testrbowser is not testing tales, and stories should not know about markup.
[14:25] <intellectronica> sinzui: why?
[14:26] <sinzui> intellectronica: browser/tests can be unit or doc they can even employ the test browser.
[14:26] <intellectronica> sinzui: that's going back to the chaos we had before the tree re-org
[14:27] <sinzui> intellectronica: Stories are integration tests that verify that a user can traverse many pages to accomplish a task. it is slow and labourious to use it to test details that have many factors at play at a high level
[14:28] <intellectronica> sinzui: is this about the time it takes to run the test suite?
[14:28] <sinzui> intellectronica: We still have chaos since we have developer writing form contract testing in stories
[14:28] <sinzui> intellectronica: no, it is about knowing what we are testing and how we test it
[14:29] <intellectronica> sinzui: but placing the files in a certain place or writing them in a particular format doesn't buy you confidence that you're testing what you need to
[14:29] <sinzui> intellectronica: you misunderstand me.
[14:30] <flacoste> sinzui: regarding the discrepancy in permission between links and views, it's usually on-purpose, the link is public but the view protected so that the user can see the link, but is asked to log in
[14:30] <sinzui> Testing the rules of a link or a form are best done in isolation where you control that is happen.
[14:30] <flacoste> sinzui: it's only a problem if the user is logged in and has permission to the link and not the view
[14:31] <sinzui> flacoste: after discovering the link issue, I tried the links in production. I got a 403
[14:33] <sinzui> flacoste: I understand your point. I think the approach to invite users to explore a feature is fine
[14:33] <flacoste> right
[14:35] <sinzui> Well I do not think there is any more to say on this.
[14:35] <intellectronica> sinzui: maybe this is a good topic for the list? i really think that i don't understand the motivation behind your argument, so i could use a for-dummies explanation
[14:36] <sinzui> intellectronica: I will. I can get examples
[14:36] <intellectronica> sinzui: thanks
[14:37] <sinzui> Does anyone else have an issue to announce/discuss
[14:37] <sinzui> 5
[14:37] <sinzui> 4
[14:37] <sinzui> 3
[14:37] <sinzui> 2
[14:37] <sinzui> 1
[14:38] <sinzui> thank you everyone.
[14:38] <sinzui> #endmeeting
[14:38] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 09:38.
[21:12] <sinzui> sorry
[21:13]  * sinzui was distracted
[21:13] <sinzui> who wants to talk about reviews?
[21:13] <rockstar> sinzui, :)
[21:14] <mwhudson> hi
[21:14] <rockstar> thumper, wgrant, hi
[21:14] <sinzui> #startmeeting
[21:14] <MootBot> Meeting started at 16:14. The chair is sinzui.
[21:14] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[21:14] <thumper> reviewer meeting?
[21:14] <sinzui>  hello everyone and welcome to this week's antipodean  reviewers meeting.  who's here today?
[21:14]  * rockstar is
[21:15] <mwhudson> i am here
[21:15]  * sinzui thinks everyone who will attend has spoken
[21:15] <thumper> me
[21:15] <sinzui> [TOPIC] agenda
[21:15] <MootBot> New Topic:  agenda
[21:15] <sinzui> * Roll call
[21:15] <sinzui> * Action items
[21:15] <sinzui> * UI review call update
[21:15] <sinzui> * Peanut gallery
[21:16] <sinzui> [Topic] Action items
[21:16] <MootBot> New Topic:  Action items
[21:16] <sinzui> * barry to get with mrevell on guidelines migration from old wiki to new
[21:16] <sinzui> ^ Not done yet
[21:16] <sinzui> * intellectronica and barry to draft guidelines for drive-by cleanups
[21:16] <sinzui> ^ Not done yet
[21:16] <sinzui> [Topic] UI review call update
[21:16] <MootBot> New Topic:  UI review call update
[21:16]  * sinzui looks for trascript
[21:16] <sinzui> intellectronica: yeah, the only interesting item was about helping developers get up to speed with integrating widgets
[21:17] <sinzui> intellectronica: we decided to talk to tim, who reported some difficulties and has started documenting the process
[21:17] <sinzui> intellectronica: if any developer still hasn't done any integration work for lazr js widgets, and wants some help and/or wants to help documenting the steps they take, you are most welcome
[21:17] <sinzui> Since the UI meeting is producing notes for all of us to read, do we need a weekly update in this meeting?
[21:17] <thumper> sinzui: intellectronica tried, but I was busy :)
[21:18] <rockstar> sinzui, I think lazr-js could use more documentation in general.
[21:19] <sinzui> I think documentation and lack of leadership was a concern for other canonical groups when they were told of use it
[21:19] <rockstar> sinzui, so does lazr-js need a leader?
[21:19] <sinzui> beuno: quickly recovered by inviting landscape and U1 people to the lazr-js sprint
[21:20] <sinzui> rockstar: Without a sense of who is guiding it, many potential contributors are hesitant to join
[21:21] <sinzui> moving on
[21:21] <sinzui> [Topic] Peanut gallery
[21:21] <MootBot> New Topic:  Peanut gallery
[21:21]  * thumper throws a peanut at sinzui
[21:22] <sinzui> I brought up the topic of menu and link testing. I do not like the testing that link is not present in a story
[21:22] <sinzui> The matter was complicated by a subdiscussions about where and what we test
[21:22] <mwhudson> we test far too much in stories, yes
[21:23] <mwhudson> sinzui: i notice that registry has far more tests in browser/tests these days
[21:24] <sinzui> We are doing a lot of view tests since we have a tremendous number of them
[21:24] <sinzui> Menus are defines in browser, so that is where I expect to so verification of link permissions, state, etc...
[21:25] <mwhudson> yep, i think it's a good thing
[21:25] <sinzui> I think I need to take my concerns to the dev list.
[21:25] <mwhudson> this reviewers meeting has a slightly different approach to testing than the other one sometimes :-)
[21:25] <sinzui> I am certain of two things. We have links to views that do not exist. We have links with permissions different from the view it links to
[21:26] <mwhudson> seems likely
[21:27] <sinzui> Gentleman, do you have any concerns that we should be discussing?
[21:27] <sinzui> 5
[21:28] <mwhudson> nope
[21:28] <thumper> nope
[21:28] <sinzui> 4
[21:28] <sinzui> 3
[21:28] <sinzui> 2
[21:28] <sinzui> 1
[21:28] <sinzui> thank you gentleman. I will compile the transcripts
[21:28] <mwhudson> thanks sinzui
[21:29] <sinzui> #endmeeting
[21:29] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 16:29.