[00:44] <james_w> https://bugs.launchpad.net/summit/+bug/663168
[00:44] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 663168 in summit "http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-n/track/other/ returns an error (affects: 1) (heat: 5)" [Critical,Confirmed]
[00:44] <james_w> that sounds like an old django bug to me
[00:44] <james_w> https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/models/querysets/#get
[00:44] <james_w> is the first entry in the section "Methods that do not return QuerySets"
[00:45] <cjohnston> Mark invalid and tell to reopen if needed
[00:45] <cjohnston> ?
[00:46] <cjohnston> o.. that might be prior to initslots being run
[00:50] <james_w> unless somehow the query is somehow returning a QuerySet
[02:09] <mhall119> james_w: I marked that bug as critical because they said they put in place a 'bandaid' fix, which I wanted to check up on and clean up if necessary
[04:12] <czajkowski> cjohnston: I've my hands full with enough things besides dev and I prefer poking proding and gentle harassing
[04:12] <czajkowski> it's more me
[17:29] <mhall119> james_w: cjohnston: nigelb: any objections to me killing the stable series now that trunk is in production?
[17:30] <nigelb> go. kill.
[17:31] <cjohnston> mhall119: I thought you were the one wanting to keep stable so that trunk could be unstable
[17:32] <nigelb> No
[17:33] <nigelb> we don't let trunk be unstable anymore apparently.
[17:40] <mhall119> nigelb: trunk is no longer unstable
[17:40] <nigelb> That too.
[17:40] <cjohnston> I thought you were wanting to allow it to be unstable mhall119
[17:41] <mhall119> cjohnston: when I thought we were going to do major work on render.py this cycle I did
[17:41] <mhall119> but that didn't happen, so we're back to just trunk and production
[17:41] <nigelb> cjohnston: can you mark the render.py item as POSTPONED
[17:41] <mhall119> if/when we end up doing that, we'll make a new unstable branch
[17:41] <cjohnston> ok
[17:41] <nigelb> mhall119: Please make that High priority for next cycle when you discuss at UDS.
[17:41] <cjohnston> you going to be at the meetings nigelb ?
[17:42] <cjohnston> and then are you going to help us next cycle? :-
[17:42] <nigelb> If its in the first half the day
[17:42] <cjohnston> :-P
[17:42] <nigelb> that will depend on a lot of things.
[17:42] <nigelb> But I will finish what I started :)
[17:42] <nigelb> I won't take "new" responsibilities
[17:42] <nigelb> but I'll take the carried over ones for sure
[17:43] <mhall119> nigelb: I'm leaning towards "replace render.py screens" rather than attempting to "refactor render.py" or "cleanup render.py"
[17:43]  * cjohnston assigns render.py to nigelb for next session
[17:43] <nigelb> mhall119: Yes, replace.
[17:43] <cjohnston> render.py is postponed
[17:43] <nigelb> With a lot of templates and macros
[17:43] <nigelb> mhall119: We should also improve our infra.
[17:44] <nigelb> What do you think of setting up jenkins? ;)
[17:44] <nigelb> and if jenkins can do auto-push to the ec2, that'd be splendid.
[17:44] <mhall119> how much work is it?
[17:44] <nigelb> I can do the work, give me a server :-)
[17:44] <nigelb> I did this for $DAYJOB
[17:44] <mhall119> or could we just have tarmac run the django test suite before landing
[17:44] <nigelb> that too
[17:45] <cjohnston> nigelb: what does [summit-hackers] on blueprints set the session summary page as the wiki page: TODO mean
[17:45] <nigelb> But that would make tarmac slower
[17:45] <nigelb> we wanted to pull the session summary from blueprints to summit
[17:45] <nigelb> and show it for ical especially
[17:45] <nigelb> still doable if you want to poke it
[17:46] <cjohnston> i thought that was different..
[17:46] <cjohnston> thats bug #793018
[17:46] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 793018 in summit "Pull the summary from the launchpad blueprint and push it out via the iCal to Guidebook (affects: 1) (heat: 3)" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/793018
[17:46] <nigelb> OR
[17:47] <nigelb> It might be pushing the session eitherpad page to launchpad
[17:47] <nigelb> But I don't remember that being talked about
[17:47] <nigelb> Anyway, we can't do it this cycle.
[17:47] <cjohnston> im trying to figure out delete vs postpone... if noone knows what it is then delete
[17:51]  * mhall119 is impatient when it comes to tarmac
[17:52] <nigelb> mhall119: I'll take an action item to help with that :)
[17:53] <cjohnston> make a slap tarmac link that we can hit
[17:53] <mhall119> nigelb: you gonna make me more patient?
[17:53] <nigelb> mhall119: No.
[17:53] <nigelb> I'll give you a link to hit
[17:53] <nigelb> I need to add lock files so we don't have simultaneous runs
[17:54] <cjohnston> mhall119: the imported blueprint is meeting model type blueprint I assume?
[17:55] <nigelb> yes
[17:55] <mhall119> yes
[17:55] <cjohnston> jamalta:
[18:10]  * cjohnston nominates jamalta as new lead for summit
[18:10] <jamalta> no way :P
[18:10] <nigelb> I propose cjohnston
[18:10] <jamalta> nigelb: +1
[18:10] <nigelb> mhall119?
[18:10] <cjohnston> nigelb: you can't propose the person who assigned you
[18:11] <nigelb> It depends
[18:11] <cjohnston> no it doesnt
[18:11] <nigelb> At the end of the majority vote wins as well ;)
[18:11] <cjohnston> this isnt a democracy
[18:11] <nigelb> I thought you were all for demcracy?
[18:12] <nigelb> Its a mertocracy. Whoever does the work gets the job.
[18:12] <nigelb> :P
[18:12] <cjohnston> no.. whoever does the work gets to pick
[18:15] <nigelb> james_w / mhall119 - relevant to yesterday http://people.mozilla.org/~jdow/deploy.jpg
[18:17] <mhall119> ha
[18:18] <jamalta> +1
[18:28] <mhall119> is james_w around today?
[18:34] <mhall119> cjohnston: nigelb: can one of you review https://code.launchpad.net/~mhall119/summit/fix-tests/+merge/75795 ?
[18:37] <nigelb> mhall119: I'll go one up on that. reviewed and landed.
[18:38] <mhall119> thanks nigelb
[18:38] <nigelb> mhall119: I'm concerned. model_mummy is becoming more painful.
[18:38] <nigelb> Is there a way to make it accept defaults
[18:39] <mhall119> nigelb: possibly, I'm not sure
[18:39] <mhall119> I think it's still worth using though
[18:39] <nigelb> Totally worth using!
[18:39] <nigelb> But when we change something, lot of tests might break
[18:47] <mhall119> nigelb: which tells us that our tests are no longer valid and need to be changed as well
[18:47] <mhall119> which is a good thing
[18:47] <nigelb> mhall119: at some point I'll exlain how launchpad tests work.
[18:48]  * AlanBell fixes another bug in https://code.launchpad.net/~alanbell/loco-directory/backbutton/+merge/73526
[18:48] <nigelb> we can just say makeProduct() and it will take some random values.
[18:48] <nigelb> I can override any property I wwant to.
[18:54] <mhall119> nigelb: is that something the LP devs created, or something they get from using Zope?
[18:54] <nigelb> I'll have to check.
[18:54] <nigelb> mhall119: created
[18:55] <james_w> mhall119, I am
[18:55] <nigelb> mhall119: not too hard either
[18:55] <nigelb> we should do something like that
[18:56] <nigelb> s/should/could
[18:56] <nigelb> Its not eeasy
[18:57] <james_w> mhall119, it's all custom code
[18:57] <james_w> it's better than model_mommy though in my opinion
[18:57] <mhall119> james_w: I landed pretty much everythiing and updated the ec2 with teh latest trunk
[18:57] <james_w> model_mommy is *almost* right
[18:57] <james_w> yay, thanks mhall119
[18:57] <james_w> just that last little bit is *so* wrong
[18:57] <nigelb> heh
[18:58] <mhall119> james_w: I had to go back and update some test cases to force requires_dial_in=False for older tests
[18:58] <james_w> it should create non-random readable strings by default
[18:58] <nigelb> We could wrap around model mummy to create such a factory.
[18:58] <james_w> mhall119, I guess that should be the default on the model?
[18:58] <james_w> nigelb, maybe, yeah
[18:58] <mhall119> james_w: it seems that model_mommy doesn't use the default, it still goes random
[18:58] <james_w> mhall119, it's docs say it should use the default if there is one, I'll look in to it
[18:59] <james_w> nigelb, in fact a subclass can likely fix it
[18:59] <mhall119> I ran pdb, and it was setting some to True
[18:59] <james_w> keeping the current mode as an optional fuzzer would be good
[18:59] <nigelb> james_w: \o/
[18:59] <mhall119> fuzz testing, fun
[18:59] <nigelb> We may be hacking around model_mummy in the wrong way.
[18:59] <james_w> deterministic tests are great
[18:59] <james_w> having a fuzzer to find problems when you want is also good
[19:01] <james_w> I might spend my afternoon on that in fact
[19:01] <james_w> let's see what my mail client says about that
[19:01] <nigelb> james_w: when I meet you again, I'm buying you a beer! :-)
[19:01] <mhall119> james_w: or you can do a production deployment of summit if you want, there's only the one migration, and no major changes
[19:01] <james_w> mhall119, ok, I can do that
[19:02] <james_w> it's Friday what can go wrong!
[19:02] <mhall119> who cares, everybody's gone home anyway
[19:03] <james_w> jamalta, nice bug fix! :-)
[19:03] <mhall119> I assume it works anyway
[19:03] <mhall119> since it calls LP using urllib2, I couldn't write a test case without mocking
[19:04] <jamalta> james_w: ha ty
[19:04] <jamalta> mhall119: well, should that be re-written to use launchpadlib instead?
[19:04] <mhall119> I don't think that particular bit is exposed via launchpadlib
[19:04] <mhall119> or at least it wasn't when it was written
[19:04] <jamalta> ahh
[19:07] <mhall119> appears to work
[19:20] <james_w> ah screwy, model_mommy explicitly ignores defaults on boolean fields
[19:20] <james_w> as django apparently sets a default on them