[01:23]  * StevenK stabs the blueprints tests
[01:23] <StevenK> test_hasspecification is calling _valid_specification on a projectgroup with an open spec, and an obsolete spec, and asserting both are returned
[01:25] <StevenK> Which makes me think the test is buggy, since valid specifications are not obselete or superseded ...
[03:27] <StevenK> wgrant: How goes the BFJO murder?
[04:07] <wgrant> StevenK: https://code.launchpad.net/~wgrant/launchpad/handleStatus-refactor-1/+merge/144049
[04:07] <wgrant> StevenK: As a bonus it makes buildd-manager logging suck a bit less
[04:07] <StevenK> Hah
[04:07] <wgrant> When a build completes it will actually log that the build completed, and what its status was
[04:08] <wgrant> Currently you get, on some types of failure, '******* rother is MANUALDEPWAIT *******'
[04:08] <wgrant> Without any reference to what the actual build was
[04:08] <wgrant> And on success or a real build failure, you get no logging at all :)
[04:12] <StevenK> 8- @classmethod
[04:12] <StevenK> 10+ @defer.inlineCallbacks
[04:12] <wgrant> Already fixed and retesting locally
[04:13] <StevenK> Right
[04:13] <wgrant> Was hoping you wouldn't notice :)
[04:13] <StevenK> It was the first change in the diff, bit hard
[04:13] <wgrant> It doesn't actually make any difference, but yeah
[04:14] <StevenK> wgrant: That is my only concern with that branch
[04:14] <wgrant> Thanks
[04:15] <StevenK> I love the _handleStatus_generic_failure refactor
[04:17] <wgrant> StevenK: It's pushed
[04:17] <wgrant> And passes tests too
[04:20] <StevenK> wgrant: r=me
[04:20] <wgrant> Thanks sir
[04:20] <StevenK> Right, hopefully the thinko I've fixed makes the tests pass.
[04:21] <wgrant> :)
[04:21] <StevenK> Aw.
[04:21] <StevenK> It fixed one test, though
[04:22] <wgrant> How many failures remain?
[04:22] <StevenK> 4
[04:23] <wgrant> ah
[04:23] <wgrant> ez
[04:23] <StevenK> From -m blueprints -m registry
[04:23] <StevenK> And I've also bent {Distro,Product}Series to my will, and destroyed Specification.completeness_clause
[04:23] <wgrant> Excellent
[04:23] <wgrant> As I plotted
[04:24] <StevenK>  14 files changed, 383 insertions(+), 765 deletions(-)
[04:24] <wgrant> Hmm
[04:24] <wgrant> Only a 50% win
[04:24] <wgrant> Although I guess it also fixes some omissions
[04:24] <StevenK> It drops a massive amount of duplication
[04:25] <wgrant> Right, I just expected more
[04:25] <StevenK> Perhaps I've missed some bits that can die, though
[04:34] <StevenK> Hm, I think my LEFT JOIN on product is screwing up my productseries call
[04:34] <wgrant> StevenK: bugtasksearch does the same thing
[04:34] <wgrant> You can probably steal ideas from there
[04:34] <wgrant> It might well omit the check if called in a product or productseries context
[04:36] <StevenK> It does it differently
[04:37] <wgrant> How differently?
[04:38] <StevenK> Currently, I do it all the time, and bugtasksearch will only do that check if product, distribution, productseries and distroseries are all unset.
[04:38] <wgrant> Right, that makes sense.
[04:38] <wgrant> The way bugtasksearch does it
[04:39] <wgrant> Possibly because I wrote it :)
[04:39] <wgrant> distribution/distroseries are obviously fine because they can't have a product
[04:39] <StevenK> Yeah
[04:39] <StevenK> So it gets included for person/project group
[04:39] <wgrant> And product/productseries are fine because they aren't accessible unless they're active or you can see inactive projects.
[04:39] <wgrant> person/projectgroup/*, yes
[04:40] <StevenK> Now I have to pass in the context
[04:40] <wgrant> You weren't already?
[04:40] <StevenK> No, I pass in a base clause
[04:40] <StevenK> Specification.productID == self.id or so
[04:40] <wgrant> Ah
[04:47] <StevenK> I could check base_clauses[0].expr2.table, but you might murder me
[04:48] <wgrant> Might?
[04:49] <StevenK> :-)
[04:51] <StevenK> wgrant: So handleStatus_OK is up next?
[04:52] <wgrant> storeBuildInfo is being demolished
[04:52] <wgrant> Well, substantially revised
[05:27] <StevenK> Ugh, I *think* this will fix the productseries failures
[05:28] <StevenK> Indeed, it does.
[05:34] <StevenK> wgrant: Is http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1554189/ a 2.7 failure?
[06:13] <wgrant> StevenK: There shouldn't be any more 2.7 failures, but that's possible.
[06:14] <StevenK> Hm
[06:16] <wgrant> I've seen this before
[06:16] <wgrant> Perhaps 18 months ago
[06:16] <wgrant> But i don't remember quite what it was
[06:17] <StevenK> I've ignored it for the time being, trying to figure out these person failures
[06:21] <wgrant> StevenK: Oh, I wonder if it's proxied
[06:23] <wgrant> Yeah
[06:23] <wgrant> 2.7 doesn't like securityproxied dicts
[06:23] <wgrant> 2.6 is fine
[06:25] <StevenK> Haha, so it is a 2.7 failure
[06:25] <wgrant> I wonder how that was missed
[06:25] <wgrant> Perhaps it is new
[06:25] <wgrant> Ah
[06:25] <wgrant> A change in September
[06:26] <wgrant>     - Issue #15801: Make sure mappings passed to '%' formatting are actually
[06:26] <_mup_> Bug #15801: mozilla-firefox-locale-tr: new changes from Debian require merging <mozilla-firefox-locale-tr (Ubuntu):Invalid> < https://launchpad.net/bugs/15801 >
[06:26] <wgrant>       subscriptable.
[06:26] <wgrant> That would be how it was missed, I guess.
[06:26] <wgrant> A regression in 2.7.something
[06:26] <StevenK> I can rSP to work around it
[06:27] <wgrant> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/2801bf875a24/
[06:29] <wgrant> (I assume)
[06:29] <StevenK> Plausible
[06:31] <lifeless> StevenK: shouldn't need to, just make sure all the attributes needed for the new check pass
[08:46] <adeuring> good morning
[14:46] <cjwatson> wgrant,StevenK: I have a QAed DB patch - do you think I could have an FDT?
[14:58] <czajkowski> having our only maintenace folks in the one timezone is not ideal :(
[14:59] <cjwatson> I'm not in a desperate rush beyond "next couple of days would be nice"
[20:09]  * mwhudson laughs at cjwatson getting 30k+ lines of LoC credit in one go
[20:10] <cjwatson> the graph looks awesome :)
[20:11] <cjwatson> http://people.canonical.com/~cjwatson/tmp/loc-cum.png
[20:14] <mwhudson> would be bad if that was a stock market index
[20:15] <lifeless> cjwatson: waaaa?
[20:17] <bigjools> what did you nuke?
[20:23] <cjwatson> database/schema/launchpad.html, last updated 2009
[20:24] <cjwatson> make target to build it locally in a few seconds if anyone cares
[20:25] <cjwatson> kind of cheating of course, but misleadingly obsolete doc is a maint problem imo
[20:25] <maxb> Never hesitate to poke fun at the arbitraryness of a metric? :-)
[20:33] <lifeless> well, its accurate so far :>
[20:33] <lifeless> cjwatson: nice catch
[21:56] <wgrant> cjwatson: Sure, we should be able to do it in a few hours