[00:03] <davecheney> niemeyer: i'm sorry to say, but somehow you reviewde an old diff
[00:06] <niemeyer> davecheney: Uh oh..
[00:06] <niemeyer> davecheney: Let me check it again
[00:07] <davecheney> niemeyer: two secs, i'll run the test and push the latest branch
[00:07] <niemeyer> davecheney: Okay
[00:13] <davecheney> niemeyer: done, https://codereview.appspot.com/6347044
[00:14] <niemeyer> davecheney: I did not review an old version.. I replied to your comment, which means it sticks in the location where the first comment was made
[00:15] <niemeyer> davecheney: I said "This should be in a test by itself", and then provided details of how to do so neatly. You mentioned "Done", and I said "Apparently not.", because the latest version didn't have a test by itself
[00:52] <davecheney> niemeyer: ok, that was my mistake. but I am now very confused
[00:52] <niemeyer> davecheney: What's up?
[00:53] <davecheney> is there still an outstanding todo on that branch, or is it all resolved ?
[00:58] <niemeyer> davecheney: The outstanding items IMO are in that last review I sent
[00:59] <niemeyer> davecheney: We're clearly talking across each other, so I'm not sure about what's the status quo
[00:59] <niemeyer> davecheney: The items I mentioned seem valid to me, and you didn't implement nor object to them
[01:00] <davecheney> niemeyer: with the exception of someone repairing the environment when the RemoveMachine fails, I belive I have addressed everything else
[01:00] <davecheney> please correct me if i am mistaken
[01:12] <niemeyer> davecheney: <niemeyer> davecheney: I said "This should be in a test by itself", and then provided details of how to do so neatly. You mentioned "Done", and I said "Apparently not.", because the latest version didn't have a test by itself
[01:13] <davecheney> niemeyer: ok, i understand now, i read that as 'this should be in _the_ test itself'
[01:13] <davecheney> I will redo
[01:13] <niemeyer> davecheney: As I mentioned there, this can use BootstrapOnce to avoid rebootstrapping
[07:34] <wrtp> davecheney, fwereade_: mornin'
[07:34] <fwereade_> wrtp, heyhey
[07:34] <fwereade_> davecheney, if you're around, also heyhey
[07:35] <davecheney> wazzup!
[08:10] <davecheney> wrtp: thanks for your review
[08:10] <davecheney> patchset 12 has tests that work
[08:10] <wrtp> davecheney: np.
[08:10] <davecheney> including a full mock using a PA running in process
[08:10] <wrtp> davecheney: ah, cool.
[08:10] <davecheney> I can repropose it as a followup CL
[08:10] <wrtp> davecheney: but that went?
[08:10] <davecheney> gustavo didn't like it
[08:11] <davecheney> as it wasn't a real test
[08:11] <davecheney> once this branch is merged i'll propose them again and we can discuss it some more
[08:13] <wrtp> davecheney: hmm. seems pretty much like a real test to me. maybe there's something i missed.
[08:14] <wrtp> davecheney: was that from gustavo's comment on line 23 here: https://codereview.appspot.com/6347044/diff2/1:5003/environs/ec2/suite_test.go?column_width=80 ?
[08:20] <davecheney> wrtp: no, gustavo felt that testing against ec2 local test with a mocked PA didn't test anyhting
[08:21] <davecheney> wrtp: it'll be easier for me to repropose after this branch is (finally) submitted
[08:21] <wrtp> davecheney: that's a bit odd. especially as it means none of the testing code in this CL is exercised.
[08:21] <wrtp> davecheney: anyway, go with what he says...
[08:22] <TheMue> morning
[08:24] <davecheney> howdy
[08:26] <davecheney> anyway gents, i'm taking a break for a bit
[08:26] <davecheney> i'll see you in a few hours for a pow wow
[08:31] <fwereade_> low on sleep last night, popping out for some sunshine
[08:59] <fwereade_> grar, work is beguiling and distracting; *really* popping out now
[09:03] <TheMue> fwereade_: dcc pleas a bit sun, we've got only clouds here.
[09:58] <wrtp> i've got to go for a dentist's appointment now. hopefully i'll be back in time for the meeting, even if i might have difficulty speaking.
[10:08] <Aram> moin.
[10:10] <fwereade_> Aram, heyhey
[10:23] <TheMue> Moin Aram
[11:01] <niemeyer> Good mornings!
[11:01] <davecheney> bonjour
[11:01] <TheMue> niemeyer: Heya
[11:02] <fwereade_> niemeyer, heyhey
[11:03] <niemeyer> Is it party time?
[11:03] <davecheney> yes please
[11:03] <davecheney> who has the invite ?
[11:04] <niemeyer> I'll do it
[11:05] <niemeyer> Done
[11:05] <Aram> a minute....
[12:10] <TheMue> Lunchtime
[12:12] <Aram> meh, both T400 and T410 are overheated by the flash in G+ Hangouts.
[12:12]  * Aram needs a new laptop, maybe.
[13:49] <TheMue> Aargh, sometimes too stupid. :O Returned from function after err == nil. *sigh*
[14:29] <TheMue> Yay, tests are green, now remove some debugging statements and propose it.
[15:20] <TheMue> So, https://codereview.appspot.com/6374047 is in.
[15:57] <niemeyer> Lunch time!
[16:11] <wrtp> TheMue: i'm looking at it. for some reason i seem to be losing all initial messages to codereview (presumably you did propose it without -wip), so thanks for the heads up.
[16:37] <wrtp> TheMue: ping
[17:06]  * niemeyer waves
[17:08]  * wrtp waves good night to niemeyer
[17:08] <niemeyer> wrtp: Are you heading off?
[17:09] <wrtp> niemeyer: i have to, yes, sorry.
[17:09] <niemeyer> wrtp: No need to be sorry.. have a pleasant time there :)
[17:09] <wrtp> niemeyer: just been looking through TheMue's firewall code.
[17:09] <niemeyer> wrtp: Oh, sweet
[17:09] <niemeyer> wrtp: How does it feel?
[17:09] <wrtp> niemeyer: not entirely sure.
[17:10] <niemeyer> wrtp: Cool, have you made comments on it?
[17:10] <wrtp> niemeyer: i'm toying with the idea that a more centralised approach might be simpler and easier to understand
[17:10] <wrtp> niemeyer: only superficial comments so far
[17:10] <niemeyer> wrtp: Thanks for that.. I'll have a look later
[17:11] <wrtp> niemeyer: anyway, still thinking, see ya tomorrow!
[17:12] <niemeyer> wrtp: Cheers!
[17:28] <niemeyer> Feeling some post-lunch sleepiness.. will lay down for a while to get through the rest of the day in better shape.
[17:28] <niemeyer> Back soon
[19:16] <niemeyer> Aram: ping
[19:17] <Aram> niemeyer: pong
[19:17] <niemeyer> Aram: Yo
[19:17] <Aram> hey
[19:17] <niemeyer> Aram: Just a sync up on this: "Fantastic, I never liked this, however, I only emulated what we have in state now."
[19:17] <Aram> yes
[19:17] <niemeyer> Aram: I don't think Machine.String returns "machine-%d" today, does it?
[19:19] <Aram> niemeyer: no, it doesn't, you were right. machine-%10d is the machinekey, which is used directly by state tests.
[19:19] <niemeyer> Aram: Aha, super
[19:19] <niemeyer> Aram: This is actually wrong too
[19:20] <niemeyer> Aram: There's no reason to not do what you're doing there
[19:20] <niemeyer> Aram: LGTM
[19:21] <Aram> niemeyer: thanks.
[19:21] <Aram> niemeyer: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~gophers/juju-core/trunk/view/head:/state/state_test.go#L172
[19:21] <Aram> that's the machinekey, isn't it?
[19:24] <niemeyer> Aram: Well, it is, but look at the actual operation going on there
[19:24] <niemeyer> Aram: zkConn.Children
[19:24] <niemeyer> Aram: It's ignoring the abstraction we put in place entirely
[19:25] <Aram> yes.
[19:25] <niemeyer> Aram: To be honest, I'd rather not have this kind of test at all, but then we have to guarantee correctness without poking at internals like this which may be tricky in some cases.
[19:25] <Aram> I agree.
[20:28] <niemeyer> Aram: https://codereview.appspot.com/6345056/ ready to go in too.. thanks!
[20:29] <Aram> niemeyer: thanks, I'll push it and the three others that are pending on after I submit the one I'm working ATM.
[20:29] <niemeyer> Aram: Sweet