[11:09] * gmb lunches [11:10] ah, lunch, good idea :) hi gmb btw :) [11:50] danilos: when you get back let's talk about bug 302449 [11:50] <_mup_> Bug #302449: Uploading a file with the same name triggers a database constraint. < https://launchpad.net/bugs/302449 > [11:51] bac, hey, I am actually working on it right now (still haven't had lunch, though I'll probably drop out for a bit to get some food) [11:51] danilos: ok, i have to eat too [11:51] cool [11:51] there are a couple of problems. one the tests blow up b/c the objects you get now are security proxied [11:52] that's easy to fix. there is another proble in the call to query to get the list of blocked items is failing and i can't figure out why [11:52] when my dev box comes back up i'll push the branch where i've made some changes [11:52] danilos: ^^ [11:53] bac, yeah, I am looking at that particular problem right now (the sourcepackagerelease*.txt failure was an easy one to fix) [11:53] ok [11:53] bac, btw, thanks for looking into it, I appreciate that [11:54] bac, I really look forward to your changes, so do let me know once you push them up [11:54] ok. [11:54] right now my laptop is not booting. :( [12:10] bac, should I guess at an oneiric upgrade? :/ [12:10] danilos: nope... it was the other side of my dual boot attempting to install a security patch post-boot [12:12] bac, btw, my factory change was broken: I removed the entry.status setting completely which caused the test failures here (someone said earlier how we should have tests for factory methods) [12:12] bac, ah-ha, interesting that mac does that as well [12:17] danilos! you have some news? [12:17] gary_poster, unfortunately, no, still a student :/ [12:17] danilos oh :-( [12:29] bac benji danilos gmb call in 1-ish [12:29] a-ok [12:31] danilos, skype? [12:31] gary_poster, I was on, but it seems to have crashed [12:31] (like a minute ago) [12:31] ack danilos ping me when I should retry [12:31] gary_poster, please retry [12:37] danilos: my branch is at bzr+ssh://bazaar.launchpad.net/~bac/launchpad/danilo-302449 [12:38] it is really unsurprising, just a sprinkling of rsp where necessary [12:38] bac, cool, thanks [12:40] danilos: any idea why getBlockableDirectories returns nothing? [12:44] bac, yeah, that's what I mentioned above: my factory change removed the setting of the entry status field, so it was never set to BLOCKED [12:44] danilos: oh, sorry, didn't see that message [12:46] bac, btw, I can't seem to get to your branch [12:46] odd [12:47] try this spelling lp:~bac/launchpad/danilo-302449 [12:47] bac, Launchpad seems to think the same if I look at https://code.launchpad.net/~bac/launchpad [12:47] bac, I did already [12:48] danilos: my bad. try now. [12:53] bac, cool, it worked, I've merged your changes now, thanks again [12:56] danilos: np. [14:27] gmb: you have time for a pre-imp about bug 831991 ? [14:27] <_mup_> Bug #831991: When the Janitor autoconfirms a bug, it should explain why

< https://launchpad.net/bugs/831991 > [14:27] bac: Certainly. I'll just start skype [14:27] bac: and i'll stop spotify [15:23] * danilos -> out, see ya tomorrow [15:54] * gary_poster goes to lunch [17:20] * bac <- food [19:08] The result of approx 6 hours of blood sweat and tears trying to get some tests to pass: [19:08] bzr diff | wc -l [19:08] 55 [19:08] ...sigh... :-) [19:38] hey gary_poster [19:59] hey bac. sorry, I was in full screen terminal mode [19:59] what's up [19:59] hey i wanted to ask about auto-confirmation of bugs [20:00] bug 831991 implies that having dupes would autoconfirm a bug [20:00] <_mup_> Bug #831991: When the Janitor autoconfirms a bug, it should explain why

< https://launchpad.net/bugs/831991 > [20:00] but the code shows otherwise [20:01] bac, it is supposed to. Note that "also affects" is affected by dupes [20:01] so perhaps that's what is confusing you? [20:01] it re-evaluates when a bug is duped...but only marks it if affected by >1 peeps [20:01] so just having a dupe does not autoconfirm [20:01] bac, ah true. [20:01] is that correct? [20:01] yes, bac [20:01] and as designed? [20:02] yes, bac. Let me make sure we're clear [20:02] if a bug is duped, then "also affects" is adjusted by the people who are in the new dupe(s) but not already existing [20:02] so if I make a bug [20:02] and then a second [20:03] and I mark the second as a dupe [20:03] then perhaps it is re-evaluated [20:03] but the number will not increase [20:03] however [20:03] if I make a bug [20:03] and then you make a bug [20:03] and I marke yours as a dupe [20:03] then "also affects" will increase by one [20:03] and so the code will be triggered [20:04] ok [20:04] (the same happens in other scenarios, [20:04] like I make a bug [20:04] I make another bug [20:04] the second bug "affects you" [20:04] but, a bug will get autoconfirmed only the number of affected users is > 1 [20:04] and then the second bug is a dupe of the first [20:04] yes bac [20:05] ok, [20:05] i found that surprising due to the comment in the bu [20:05] bug [20:05] thanks for the clarification [20:05] * gary_poster looks at bug... [20:05] yeah, comment is confusing [20:05] np === benji is now known as Guest95110 === benji___ is now known as benji