[00:12] https://dogfood.launchpad.net/ubuntu/precise/+source/cjwatson-pcj-testing/1.1 - qualified exclamation of glorious victory [00:12] The Builds link goes to the private archive - do we think that's a problem? [00:14] I think it's unrestricted the actual .debs though [00:15] Let's see what publishing that does [00:28] cjwatson: That's normal. [00:29] Indeed, it looks good. [00:29] Ah, that BPB is in fact public because BPB permissions are odd. [00:31] Right, BPB.private === all(spph.archive.private for spph in bpb.spr.spphs) [00:32] So that's all good. [04:42] wallyworld, wgrant: https://code.launchpad.net/~stevenk/launchpad/destroy-old-privacy-ui/+merge/112002 [04:43] lots of LOC credit there [04:44] It only hits -488 [04:44] Bug{Visibility,Security}Change are probably only worth another -20 [04:44] Er, -200 [04:49] StevenK: field_names on BugSecrecyEditView doesn't need to be a property anymore [04:52] same with schema i think [04:53] schema has to remain a property [04:53] I think you're right, field_names = ['information_type'] should be fine [04:54] why does scheme need to be a property? lots of other places don't do it that way [04:54] it was only a property because of the logic involved [04:55] with the feature flag afaiui [04:55] wallyworld: It needs to protect the class defined in it to not get eval'd too early. [04:55] wallyworld: Keep in mind InformationTypeVocabulary() still has two feature flags that get read on initialize. [04:56] ah, ok. thanks [04:56] StevenK: these lines: [04:56] 159 - if not self.request.is_ajax: [04:56] 160 - return canonical_url(self.context) [04:56] 161 - return None [04:56] 162 + return canonical_url(self.context) [04:56] i don't think they need to (or can be) changed [04:57] We no longer do a AJAX call [04:57] really? ok [04:57] i guess we do a patch then? [04:58] it must be an xhr call of some sort though [04:58] wallyworld: Sure, which is done in the JS [04:58] Doesn't involve the form or its next_url in any way [04:59] you sure? many other places in the js do a post and reuse the same form at the backend [04:59] so the ajax check is required [04:59] wallyworld: Yes. The JS uses ChoiceSource [04:59] and this was originally written to work that way [05:00] ok, so the choicesource widget must call lp_client.patch then i assume [05:01] which does a named_post [05:01] Yes, which uses the *API*, not the form machinery. [05:02] yes [05:05] StevenK: so if the api is used, transitionToInformationType() returns True. the old ajax call returned the direct subscribers so the subscription portlet could be updated since changing info type also can mess with subscribers. how do we handle that now? [05:06] wallyworld: We don't, currently. But I'm not sure we care since changing the information_type isn't going to mess subscribers soon. [05:07] StevenK: you sure? there's a card jc is looking at which will [05:07] bug 1014922 [05:08] wallyworld: The reason it updates subscibers is due to visibility, and the rule that subscription confers visibility is going away, so ... [05:08] StevenK: but you are not allowed to be subscribed to bugs you can't see [05:08] so if a bug is made private, some people don't be able to see the bug anymore, hence will be unsubscribed [05:09] plus making a bug private may add subscribers in defined roles [05:09] No [05:09] Well, only the person who is performing the action [05:09] It won't add others. [05:09] defined roles definition may change sure [05:10] atm it adds bug supervisor or pillar owner etc [05:10] but the point is, the subscribers list changes and we seem to have a regression [05:10] in not updating the ui after a info type change [05:10] since before the ui change, it all worked as expected [05:15] StevenK: i think we can delete this entire block of code? [05:15] 371 - if (not bool(getFeatureFlag( [05:15] 372 - 'disclosure.show_information_type_in_ui.enabled')) and [05:15] 373 - extra_data.private): [05:15] 374 - if params.information_type == InformationType.PUBLIC: [05:15] 375 + if extra_data.private: [05:15] 376 + if params.information_type in PUBLIC_INFORMATION_TYPES: [05:16] Nope, it's used, I think. [05:16] There were one or two tests that depended on the behaviour at least. [05:18] StevenK: but won' the initial if condition in the original code always be false with the ff turned on? so the code will never be evaluated [05:18] wallyworld: I can't recall the reason I added the guard there. [05:18] It clearly shouldn't be. [05:19] I think I had the guard when that function was expecting private/security_related to flow through the whole thing [05:19] perhaps with ff turned on extra_data.private is replaced by extra_data.information_type [05:19] wallyworld: Sadly not [05:21] extra_data.information_type should probably be added. [05:24] yes [05:25] StevenK: what text is printed out in place of this? [05:25] 843 - >>> print admin_browser.contents [05:25] 844 - 845 - ...This is a private bug...Foo Bar...won’t be notified... [05:25] do we need to fix the test so it checks? [05:25] That is looking for a notification that is no longer printed. [05:25] ok [05:26] wallyworld: That test sucked to debug. The notification isn't in the contents so the doctest prints out the 400 lines of contents [05:27] yeah, i hate that too [05:29] StevenK: in this case though, can't we check for the new info type text? [05:29] 985 - ... "This bug report should be private").selected = False [05:30] wallyworld: Ah, we're setting it back so we don't fuck up the next test in the doctest, no longer needed. [05:30] of course, silly me [05:37] StevenK: r=me with a comment to raise a bug for the regression [05:40] wallyworld: Right, okay. But that bug might end up being marked as Invalid :-) [05:41] what am i missing? [05:41] the subscribers list can change, no? [05:41] at the very least, the person marking the bug private will be subscribed [05:41] so the subscribers list will need updating [05:42] wallyworld: Oh, your second comment is related to extra_data.private -- there's a test around for that -- I'll ignore that bit for now, and mention to Curtis if it is actually used at all [05:42] ok [05:42] the second one was more of a request just to see what might be needed [05:46] wallyworld: https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/1017818 [05:46] <_mup_> Bug #1017818: subscriber list does not update after changing information type < https://launchpad.net/bugs/1017818 > [05:46] Oh sure, *now* _mup_ answers. [05:46] StevenK: thanks. i hope i'm not missing something stupid asking for that bug to be raised [05:47] wallyworld: Well, as you say, the person doing the action may end up subscribed [05:47] and *possibly* others removed [05:47] as per jc's card [05:48] Right [05:48] Stuff might happen, as it were. [05:48] StevenK: so we may need to undelete the code that constructs the json data struct :-) [05:49] Ew [05:49] It will probably have to be in JS, rather than in the form [05:49] well, ideally we wouldn't make a 2nd xhr call [05:49] so the call to update the info type would return the data needed to update the ui [05:50] Maybe. [05:50] or at least update the request cache [05:50] That sounds okay [05:50] which would also eliminate a 2nd call [05:50] whatever works :-) [05:51] wallyworld: This branch has been through ec2 twice, but since it's so large I'm going to toss it for a third run. [05:51] good idea :-) [07:22] 'morning [07:38] jam! [07:38] jelmer: ! [07:38] cjwatson: you're on the blame list for buildbot failing. http://lpbuildbot.canonical.com/builders/lucid_lp/builds/2182 [07:38] It looks unrelated (celery failure, I believe) [07:43] Yeah, no way that's related to my change. -ops suggested it's already been forced [07:47] gmb: https://code.launchpad.net/~jelmer/launchpad/no-revhistory-1/+merge/112018 [07:48] good morning [07:54] cjwatson: Yes, twice, in fact. === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan === gmb changed the topic of #launchpad-dev to: http://dev.launchpad.net/ | On call reviewer: gmb (sprinting, so YMMV) | Firefighting: - | Critical bugs: 3.47*10^2 [09:26] gmb: http://paste.ubuntu.com/1060456/ [09:28] jelmer, https://lists.launchpad.net/yellow/msg00938.html [09:29] gmb: gracias [10:04] adeuring: That patch should land on devel if it's been applied live. [10:04] adeuring: Not db-devel [10:04] adeuring: That is a live patch, so it's probably been applied live already or should be soon. [10:04] wgrant: no, flacoste asked me to back it out. [10:05] wgrant: and since the bug is really old, it does not matter if the brach is merged a few days sooner or later ;) [10:06] adeuring: I saw, but I think he misunderstood. [10:06] https://dev.launchpad.net/PolicyAndProcess/DatabaseSchemaChangesProcess [10:06] "For hot patches the target is lp:launchpad, but for cold patches it should be lp:launchpad/db-devel. " [10:06] And that looks like a hot patch [10:06] stub: Has the ftq patch been applied anywhere yet? [10:07] wgrant: no, not that I'm aware of [10:07] IIRC it is a hot patch, no need for downtime [10:07] wgrant: yes, you're right -- but I'll simply merge the branch now into db-devel ;) [10:07] Right, => devel [10:07] adeuring: No! [10:07] db-devel is for cold patches [10:07] why? [10:07] I don't care where it lands but I'm not the shephard [10:08] If you merge it into db-devel, all it means is I have to merge db-stable into devel an extra time tomorrow [10:08] It achieves nothing other than delays :) [10:08] db-devel is the downtime queue [10:08] This doesn't need downtime, so it does not belong on db-devel. [10:08] wgrant: so just wait until a merge is necessary anyway ;) [10:09] Simplest solution is to ask stub to apply it now and then land to devel in 5 minutes when it's applied everywhere :) [10:10] point me at the patch/mp [10:10] stub: https://code.launchpad.net/~adeuring/launchpad/bug-29713/+merge/111212 [10:11] tjhough that one is meanwhile reverted [10:11] stub: https://code.launchpad.net/~adeuring/launchpad/bug-29713-db-dev/+merge/112043 [10:17] adeuring: I'll apply the db patch in https://code.launchpad.net/~adeuring/launchpad/bug-29713-db-dev/+merge/112043 now. [10:17] stub: great, thanks! [10:20] Gah. Whitespace munging, cut & paste, urgh [10:25] adeuring: done [10:25] stub: thanks [10:28] stub: you ran the patch on qastaging, right? [10:28] adeuring: No, just production [10:28] I'll do qastaging now [10:28] stub: ok [10:30] Done on qastaging === matsubara is now known as matsubara-lunch === rick_h_ changed the topic of #launchpad-dev to: http://dev.launchpad.net/ | On call reviewer: gmb (sprinting, so YMMV), rick_h | Firefighting: - | Critical bugs: 3.47*10^2 === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away === matsubara-lunch is now known as matsubara [12:39] wgrant: https://code.launchpad.net/~cjwatson/launchpad/remove-single-custom-upload-exception/+merge/112093 [12:42] cjwatson: Thanks === benji___ is now known as benji [13:05] rick_h_: abel said you could maybe help me with a problem in html (if you got time for it)? [13:05] ivory: sure thing [13:06] rick_h_: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ivo-kracht/launchpad/bug-806660/revision/15436 [13:06] rick_h_: i created a seperate form but the "Add" button is offset and i dont know why [13:07] rick_h_: oh this is the bug i amworking on https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/806660 [13:07] <_mup_> Bug #806660: "Add a new address" in e-mail settings does the wrong thing when pressing Enter < https://launchpad.net/bugs/806660 > [13:07] loading [13:08] ivory: so the add button is offset in the initial html? You're wanting to get rid of that offset? [13:10] rick_h_: no the new one is offset to the right and i want it to be like theold one was [13:12] ivory: so what I would do is colspace the and then using padding-left to get it where you want it. [13:12] ivory: now that it's not connected to the rules of the other form, it won't really line up automatically and it's splitting the width 50/50 usually by default [13:12] the wide content of the second in the upper form was pushing the button over for you [13:13] honestly, they should probably be defined in some way so that it's consistant. So with a common width set for that first on both forms [13:13] ah ok i just wondered why it did that, thank you for helping [13:14] np [13:34] rick_h_, Do you agree with my assessment...should this bug be marked wontfix? https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/383943 [13:35] loading [13:37] sinzui: right, it's the API [13:37] sinzui: I mean we could, via getter/setter ATTRS try to mirror things for easier API usage [13:37] but seems like more work than it's worth [13:47] can I haz database patch number for bug #1016776 please? [13:47] <_mup_> Bug #1016776: Users are offered updates to packages in the -proposed staging area pre-release < https://launchpad.net/bugs/1016776 > [13:48] Argh, I hate DB security [13:52] cjwatson: so ummm, I assume this branch is part of stuff you've been working with the ppa pros on? [13:52] cjwatson: so you need this to land by wed in production? or the prev code is scheduled to be tested there then? [13:53] rick_h_: Which one, sorry? [13:54] cjwatson: sorry, the one in review with your deletions for the unembargo code [13:54] https://code.launchpad.net/~cjwatson/launchpad/remove-unembargo-package/+merge/112044 [13:54] rick_h_: No, I was noting an intent not to land it until after I've made sure that the ubuntu-security team can use the new code that should hopefully be deployed tomorrow [13:55] There's no rush on remove-unembargo-package; was just getting it in for review early, that's all [13:55] ok, so I'll make a comment that review will pend the test [13:55] Right, that's what I thought I'd written in my cover letter :-) [13:55] Well, there's no harm reviewing it earlier [13:55] right, well you said you won't land it, but as the reviewer I'll punt it until after entirely if that doesn't block you at all [13:55] But sure [13:55] it's not exactly my wheel house, but I don't want to hold you up if you needed this [13:55] Not at all, was just getting stuff off my disk [13:56] ok, cool [13:56] Laney: let me pull that down and get you an id [13:57] What is a bit more urgent is my r15491, which I've just marked qa-bad; should I revert that? I think it's just a security.cfg patch to fix it, but I do need to figure out a test [13:58] cjwatson: hmm, so I don't think there will be a deploy by us today. So if you can get the fix in I'd go for the fix [13:59] if it'll be tomorrow or tonight (when the aussies get going) I'd revert it out [13:59] Should be soon - couple of phone calls coming up but let's see what I can do [14:00] cjwatson: ok, sounds like a plan [14:02] sinzui: with that nth child, it's just grabbing the submit button right? I wonder if it could just be changed to grab based on name/etc? Or am I misreading that [14:03] rick_h_, yes, name would also work in this case. [14:03] ah, they don't have names so that they're not submitted I'd imagine [14:05] oh, right