[08:41] <jtv> Urgent review needed, folks!
[08:41] <jtv> It's for a good cause—unbreaking buildbot
[08:41] <jtv> and enabling a re-roll
[08:46] <adeuring> jtv: what do you need reviewed?
[08:46] <jtv> adeuring: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~jtv/launchpad/db-bug-476218/+merge/14532
[08:46] <jtv> tiny but urgent :-)
[08:47]  * adeuring is looing
[08:47] <jtv> dankeschön
[08:53] <adeuring> jtv: r=me
[08:53] <jtv> adeuring: vielen Dank!
[08:53] <adeuring> jtv: gern geschehen :)
[08:54] <jtv> ...und gerne gesehen :-)
[08:55]  * noodles775 r-c's
[08:56] <noodles775> jtv: ok, land away :)
[08:56]  * jtv approaches the landing strip
[09:07] <gmb> adeuring: Good morning. Would you be able to take a look at https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~gmb/launchpad/subscriber-portlet-timeout-bug-393476/+merge/14502 for me?
[09:08] <adeuring> Morning gmb, sure, I'll look
[09:08] <gmb> Thanks.
[09:45] <adeuring> gmb: r=me
[09:50] <gmb> adeuring: Excellent, thanks
[11:06] <wgrant> adeuring: Thanks.
[11:06] <adeuring> wgrant: welcome 
[11:06] <wgrant> adeuring: I have another really easy (sed) one there, if you have time...
[11:07] <adeuring> wgrant: sure
[11:07] <adeuring> wgrant: I am good in forgetting small things. So, don't hestitate to kick me next week, when PQM opens again, to submit you branch
[11:08] <wgrant> adeuring: Heh, will do. Thanks.
[11:08] <wgrant> adeuring: can you flip the MP status itself to Approved?
[11:09] <adeuring> wgrant: done. (good example how i can forget things ;)
[11:11] <wgrant> adeuring: Well, *everybody* forgets that.
[11:16] <adeuring> wgrant: r=me for yoor brnach with the sample data fix
[11:19] <wgrant> adeuring: Thanks muchly.
[14:40] <barry> salgado, adeuring would either of you care to review a fairly simple change to a contrib script in launchpadlib?  https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~barry/launchpadlib/475547-cmb/+merge/14482
[14:42] <salgado> barry, sure, I'll take it
[14:42] <barry> salgado: thanks
[14:58] <salgado> barry, r=me
[14:58] <barry> salgado: thanks!
[16:15] <sinzui> adeuring: salgado: barry: I have a small fix https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~sinzui/launchpad/cancel-gpg-bug-391630/+merge/14553
[16:16] <adeuring> I'd like to duck out... working on an urgent bug...
[16:16] <sinzui> my work is not urgrent
[16:37] <salgado> sinzui, you might want to check test_logintoken.py in lib/c/l/browser/tests.  it has some infrastructure for testing the Cancel action of logintoken views
[16:37] <salgado> I think your test could be moved there and benefit of such infrastructure
[16:38] <sinzui> salgado: Does it know then the view is missing with the form so that we never get to the cancel action?
[16:38] <salgado> missing with the form?
[16:39] <sinzui> salgado: The test was pretty conclusive when I added the field that the user submits. I walked through the initialize() method and then validate() to make sure the cancel action was reached
[16:41] <sinzui> salgado: The view's initialize() method  makes the field required. The form is always validated before the success action is called
[16:45] <salgado> sinzui, right, but I don't see why you're telling me all that
[16:46] <salgado> I mean, is this going to be a problem if you use LPFormHarness to test the view?
[16:48] <sinzui> salgado: I think the view was at fault, and the test belongs in the view...
[16:49] <sinzui> salgado: I do not see test_logintoken.py
[16:49] <salgado> sinzui, it's on db-devel
[16:49] <sinzui> so is my branch
[16:49] <salgado> and test_logintoken.py is a view test
[16:50] <salgado> lib/canonical/launchpad/browser/tests/test_logintoken.py
[16:50] <sinzui> bugger, I think I branched from the wrong tree
[16:51] <sinzui> i did
[16:56]  * sinzui adds test
[16:59] <sinzui> salgado: the test harness is bad
[17:01] <sinzui> I added the test, then removed the change I made to the initialize() method. The test passed. 
[17:02] <sinzui> Oh, I see, the test is indeed naive on the very point is was trying to make. salgado, The test assumes that no data is submitted during the cancel action. That is wrong.
[17:04] <salgado> sinzui, does it assume that or does it just don't expect anything to be submitted?
[17:05] <salgado> s/anything/any data/
[17:07] <sinzui> The form data is hardcodes to an empty dict. I have a fix
[17:08] <sinzui> I do not have a fix
[17:08]  * sinzui looks again
[17:12] <salgado> sinzui, don't bother with that if it's too much work.  I only suggested it because I thought it could make things simpler
[17:12] <sinzui> I am bothered and I am going to make it work.
[17:29] <EdwinGrubbs> salgado, barry: I have to go to lunch now, but I have a pretty easy branch for review at https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~edwin-grubbs/launchpad/bug-234051-bug-project-info/+merge/14556
[17:40] <barry> Edwin-lunch: i can do it
[17:44] <sinzui> salgado: I will retrack my branch and set the bug as fix-released by you. Your validator changes were a global fix
[17:45] <salgado> no way
[17:45] <salgado> all of that just because you branched from the wrong tree. :/
[17:45] <sinzui> yep
[17:47]  * sinzui finds lunch
[18:27] <beuno> sinzui, I will wait for your review on Edwin's branch before I say anything
[18:30] <barry> beuno: on edwin's branch, i like that he's added the pillars under the bugs, but why aren't they all linked?
[18:34] <beuno> barry, good comment to make on the mp  ;)
[18:34] <barry> beuno: exactly :)
[18:45] <barry> beuno, Edwin-lunch branch reviewed
[19:07] <sinzui> beuno: Edwin-lunch: I just commented about the alignment of the badges
[21:17] <sinzui> barry: can you take a brief look at https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~sinzui/launchpad/latest-release-portlet-bug-424893/+merge/14565
[21:17] <barry> sinzui: sure, sec
[21:40] <sinzui> beuno: ping
[21:41] <beuno> sinzui, pong
[21:41] <sinzui> beuno: I am having last minutes doubts about https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad-registry/+bug/400643
[21:41] <sinzui> We agreed to do
[21:41] <sinzui>     Ubuntu >> 10.04 >> "bzr" source package
[21:41] <sinzui> But I think it should be
[21:41] <sinzui>     Ubuntu >> Lucid (10.04) >> "bzr" source package
[21:42] <beuno> sinzui, I prefer that, yes
[21:43] <sinzui> oh actually, I see examples of this: 6.10 (Edgy)
[21:43] <sinzui> beuno: What is the official way to present version and code name for series? products are 1.23 "code name"
[21:44] <beuno> that's a good question
[21:44] <sinzui> beuno: My example is bad, that was a milestone
[21:44] <sinzui> products use bzr 2.1 series
[21:44] <beuno> Karmic (9.10) or 9.10 (Karmic)
[21:45] <beuno> I think those would be the choices
[21:45] <beuno> I don't like the quotes really
[21:45] <sinzui> Lucid LTS
[21:45] <barry> sinzui: r=me
[21:45] <sinzui> We have yet to accommodate LTS in the name
[21:45] <sinzui> thanks barry
[21:46] <beuno> sinzui, is LTS part of the string?
[21:46] <barry> beuno, sinzui i can't exactly say why, but i think Karmic (9.10) looks better
[21:47] <beuno> barry, it's more readable
[21:47] <sinzui> barry" We like words more than numbers, which is what this bug is really about
[21:47] <beuno> starting with numbers is hard to read
[21:47] <beuno> and hard to compare
[21:48] <barry> beuno sinzui is this a generic change though?  I'm not sure I'd like to see (for Mailman): Vital Signs (3.0.0a4)
[21:48] <barry> well, maybe that doesn't looks so bad
[21:48] <beuno> sinzui, I'd just bite the bullet, and it expose it as "CodeName (name)" everywhere
[21:49] <sinzui> beuno: I was going to suggest that. I may need more than one branch, but it does not require me to think. just jfdi
[21:49] <beuno> sinzui, +1
[21:51] <sinzui> barry: I was pondering a change to series. Use a mix to define all things common to all kinds of series. define title as a combination of version and codename and enforce universal consistentcy
[21:54] <barry> sinzui: that makes sense, as long as there is a code name.  of course we can't require a code name (i.e. your rc patch)
[21:55] <sinzui> distroseries have a title attribute that users must provide. product series to not have a codename or a displayname.
[21:56] <sinzui> This problem is really the same scope as fixing all the name, displayname, title, summary, description attributes on all objects
[21:56] <barry> sinzui: those should really be in a common interface
[21:57] <sinzui> Hes they should
[21:57] <sinzui> yes
[21:57] <sinzui> Instead of a UI fix next year, we should do a model fix. Solve the project and projectgroup problem
[22:06] <barry> sinzui: +1