[21:53] mwhudson: hey [21:53] lp:~lifeless/launchpad/test [21:53] has some more work in it just fixing ec2 detected failures. [21:53] more stale-librarian processes mainly. [21:54] I'm sending it in to find more, but would like to know if the recent commits are clear to you [21:54] lifeless: wow, branch of doom [21:54] mwhudson: I knew this would uncover a pile of mess. [21:54] and it is [21:55] its very clear to me why we were ending up with 4-5 librarians running mid-test-suite-run [21:55] :) [21:55] yeah [21:56] lifeless: the changes look basically fine [21:57] lifeless: does LaunchpadScriptLayer.tearDown need to be conditional like that? [21:59] well [21:59] unregisterProvider returns False if it did not unregister. [21:59] it might not unregister because: [21:59] - its not registered [21:59] - something prevents it being unregistered [22:00] the former might happen if setUp wasn't called/blew up [22:00] or if the base object got replaced with an empty registry. [22:00] or the mailbox object got replaced. [22:10] lifeless: i wonder if noisly exploding would be the thing to do there? [22:11] (i'm not trying to ask leading questions, just encourage discussion/thinking) [22:15] eventually, perhaps [22:16] lifeless: i guess it's not for this branch, but "ls --versioned --recursive --null --kind file | xargs -0 fgrep 'Setup().setUp()'" show more work to be done at some point :-) [22:16] lifeless: ok, i'm fine with the branch as-is, i hope there's not too much more to go before landing :-) [22:16] mwhudson: yeah [22:16] mwhudson: me too :P [22:16] I'm only doing this cause I want parallel testing [22:18] mwhudson: so we could raise LayerInvarient [22:18] (sp?) [22:19] yeah, something like that [22:19] I'd like to work on NotImplemented as a thing separately [22:19] (sorry, brain not working today) [22:19] firstly I want to make it stateful [22:19] then unique instances [22:20] then parallel [22:20] lifeless: 'it' ? [22:20] then cleanup [22:20] the test environment [22:20] ah ok [22:22] lifeless: a problem that i've not yet had any good ideas about is the problem of hard coded paths/ports/etc in configs for tests that launch subprocesses [22:22] mwhudson: See my thread where I describe how to fix that. I'd love a critical eye. So far its been 'mgmt' saying 'wow lovely' :P [22:23] lifeless: subject? [22:23] i have a feeling i only skimmed that mail [22:23] stories for ... [22:24] ah right [23:40] lifeless: ok i replied to the mail [23:40] lifeless: slightly incoherently, sorry about that === _mup__ is now known as _mup_