[01:54] <Saviq> didrocks, we got a release! awesome man, thanks!
[01:57] <didrocks> Saviq: yw ;)
[01:57] <didrocks> you should go to bed as well!
[01:57] <didrocks> Saviq: you missed some fun though
[01:57] <didrocks> like launchpad ppa not uploading the binary package
[01:57] <didrocks> (beeing in some kind of freeze to add arm64…)
[05:58] <Mirv> bregma: https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/1223671 seeing FTBFS now that cu2d starts to be about operational again
[06:29] <mzanetti> veebers: hii
[06:58] <mzanetti> lol... I like how Saviq puts "Needs Information" comments on his own merge requests
[08:48] <mzanetti> greyback: good morning
[08:49] <greyback> mzanetti: hye
[08:49] <mzanetti> greyback: I messed up with the review (once again) :D
[08:49] <mzanetti> app.desktopFile doesn't exist any more
[08:49] <mzanetti> I'll fix it
[08:49] <greyback> mzanetti: oh dear
[08:50] <mzanetti> greyback: but I guess now it's the time to switch to the real model stuff anyways
[08:50] <mzanetti> greyback: also, I need to align the items in the launcher to the dash.
[08:51] <mzanetti> greyback: is it true that as long as an app is contained in the appmanager model, it's shown in the dash too?
[08:51] <greyback> mzanetti: yes
[08:51] <mzanetti> so basically I just display everything in there
[08:51] <mzanetti> ok. /me is on it
[08:52] <greyback> ack
[08:56] <Saviq> mzanetti, :PPP
[08:56] <mzanetti> Saviq: ?
[08:56] <Saviq> mzanetti, "Needs information"
[08:56] <mzanetti> haha
[08:58] <mzanetti> Saviq: yesterday evening, after flashing my device with -b it took like half an hour to compile unity and it went really hot...
[08:59] <mzanetti> Saviq: so I decided to give cross compiling a go. But seems I'm hitting a bug in Qt's cmake files. Do you know anything about it?
[08:59] <Saviq> mzanetti, oh yes!
[09:00] <mzanetti> Saviq: I thought we could quite easily set this up... just extracting a pbuilder tarball in /opt. I've prepared a toolchain.cmake file already... so run_on_device could quite easily be changed to cross-compile, given we manage to get around that bug
[09:01] <Saviq> mzanetti, there's people working no this
[09:01] <Saviq> mzanetti, you'
[09:01] <Saviq> ve got mail
[09:04] <mzanetti> Saviq: hmm... my approach would have been to go with just an armhf chroot for the build root and using the cross gcc from the host system.
[09:04] <mzanetti> Saviq: from what I understand in that mail they want to do it for real in the desktop system by supporting all multiarch stuff in there
[09:04] <mzanetti> Saviq: which might be quite nice for us. But might be an additional issue when trying to get this stuff running on e.g. windows
[09:04] <mzanetti> or other distros
[09:05] <Saviq> mzanetti, well, yeah, it's a more complete solution, where you can easily build a package etc.
[09:05] <mzanetti> Saviq: you can do that in the chroot too
[09:06] <Saviq> mzanetti, I know, that's what's happening there, although a more "proper" way maybe - obviously the net result would be to be able to cross-build in buildd / PPAs
[09:06] <Saviq> mzanetti, either way, it worked for me after having tweaked some things
[09:07] <mzanetti> Saviq: so you patched the Qt cmake files to actually regard CMAKE_PREFIX_PATH?
[09:08] <Saviq> mzanetti, https://code.launchpad.net/~unity-team/unity8/cross-building/+merge/179248 shows what I changed in unity8's code, and an email from me in that thread describes what else needed to happen
[09:09] <Saviq> mzanetti, the MultiArchCross.cmake fixes are in distro
[09:09] <mzanetti> cool... I'll give it a try in some lazy evening
[09:09] <Saviq> mzanetti, I had to hardcode CMAKE_INSTALL_LIBDIR
[09:37] <sil2100> greyback: hi!
[09:37] <sil2100> greyback: I see yesterday unity8 got published - all was ok?
[09:41] <greyback> sil2100: there are still some branches to go. But yeah getting there
[10:10]  * greyback back in 40
[10:14] <Saviq> nic-doffay, here?
[10:15] <Saviq> Mirv, ping
[10:37] <Mirv> Saviq: pong
[10:37] <Saviq> Mirv, hey, just wanted to let you know if you want to save time on builders - https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2013-June/037380.html
[10:38] <Saviq> Mirv, when I built qtdeclarative yesterday, it took some 20 mins on my laptop to just optipng them...
[10:38] <mzanetti> Saviq: as gerry is away, https://code.launchpad.net/~mzanetti/qtubuntu/register-application-interface/+merge/185010
[10:38] <Saviq> I can only imagine how long that takes on armhf builders...
[10:38] <Mirv> Saviq: ah yeah sorry, I noted the link but didn't reply. indeed that export NO_PNG_PKG_MANGLE=1 is worthwhile in some cases.
[10:39] <Mirv> optipng is really, really slow
[10:39] <Saviq> Mirv, obviously if there's a separate package with assets (that's Architecture: all) the gain is smaller
[10:39] <Mirv> for either doing more rapid Qt builds or alternatively permanently for our upstream projects
[10:40] <Saviq> Mirv, but still worth thinking of
[10:40] <Saviq> mzanetti, happrovd
[10:40] <mzanetti> cheers
[10:40] <Mirv> Saviq: yes, it could be helpful for the daily release of some packages (or all)
[10:48] <Mirv> Saviq: btw we shouldn't have panda builds anymore, which is great :) but the optipng takes ages on even high-end x86 in some cases
[10:48] <Saviq> Mirv, yeah
[10:48] <Saviq> Mirv, that was sent back when we didn't have the calxeda setup yet ;)
[11:01] <mzanetti> Saviq: and another one: https://code.launchpad.net/~mzanetti/unity-mir/register-app-interfaces/+merge/185017
[11:02] <Saviq> mzanetti, happroved
[11:29] <Saviq> seb128, I forgot so many times... you know that settings app is laid out wrong on maguro? it seems to use a preset width for the items in the grids
[11:29] <Saviq> seb128, and they're not horizontal-aligned evenly
[11:29] <Saviq> seb128, also, "Language & Te..." is cropped here
[11:29] <seb128> Saviq, no, I don't know about that ... do you have a screenshot?
[11:29] <Saviq> seb128, sure, sec
[11:30] <seb128> Saviq, thanks
[11:30] <seb128> Saviq, bonus point if you file a bug (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-system-settings/+filebug) and include it
[11:34] <Saviq> seb128, bug #1223827
[11:35] <Saviq> seb128, we actually have a ResponsiveGridView for such use cases in unity8
[11:35] <Saviq> seb128, I always thought it could earn its place in the SDK
[11:36] <seb128> Saviq, I wonder what is wrong with the standard grid :/
[11:36] <Saviq> seb128, it's not dynamic
[11:36] <Saviq> seb128, you need to set the item width / height manually
[11:37] <Saviq> and the item count per row
[11:40] <seb128> Saviq, well we have "columns: width / unitys.gu(<width_item>)" and width: <width_item> for the elements
[11:40] <seb128> Saviq, it does work/wrap correctly on resize on the desktop
[11:40] <seb128> Saviq, but indeed you have cases where it eats a marging
[11:41] <Saviq> seb128, then maybe there's just not enough space so that it misaligns?
[11:41] <seb128> Saviq, right, that logic works fine where the width a multiple of the item width
[11:42] <seb128> is a multiple*
[11:44] <Saviq> seb128, yeah, you need to adapt the item width size
[11:44] <seb128> Saviq, you need to fix a variable somewhere...
[11:44] <Saviq> seb128, and work with a minimum / maximum
[11:45] <Saviq> seb128, sure, have a look at ResponsiveGridView in unity8
[11:45] <seb128> Saviq, so ranges?
[11:45] <seb128> if resolution is in [..] 4 items
[11:45] <seb128> in [...] 5 items
[11:45] <seb128> etc?
[11:45] <Saviq> seb128, not resolution, but width
[11:45] <seb128> then have width_item = width/number
[11:45] <seb128> Saviq, right
[11:45] <Saviq> seb128, minimum_width <= item_width < maximum_width
[11:46] <seb128> Saviq, I start really disliking qml btw :p there is so much hackish stuff to do/things the toolkit doesn't do for you
[11:46] <Saviq> seb128, and you minimize the number of columns having that condition in mind
[11:46] <seb128> it's fun for nice demos
[11:46] <seb128> but as soon as you need things to behave in a solid way it's piling of hacks
[11:46] <Saviq> seb128, lol
[11:47] <Saviq> seb128, sure it's not complete (hence our own SDK)
[11:47] <Saviq> seb128, did you see 5.1 layouts, though?
[11:47] <Saviq> seb128, it's just not complete yet :)
[11:47] <seb128> Saviq, thanks for the hint, I'm going to have a look to ResponsiveGridView
[11:47] <seb128> Saviq, yeah, I saw that, I wish we would be on 5.1 already :p
[11:49] <seb128> Saviq, sorry for the ranting, I just had a very frustrating day yesterday trying to parse simple json to display items in a listview
[11:49] <seb128> Saviq, it's like you need to go to cpp, do manual parsing, do abstract model ... it's all crazyness and too hard for a simple usecase
[11:50] <seb128> where XmlListModel is great, it just doesn't exist for json :/
[11:51] <Saviq> seb128, did you write a JsonListModel, then? ;)
[11:51] <Saviq> seb128, http://qt-project.org/wiki/JSONListModel
[11:52] <seb128> Saviq, there is one in https://github.com/kromain/qml-utils/tree/master/JSONListModel I pondered just copying the qml insource
[11:52] <seb128> Saviq, but then I've hundred of lines of code copied from somewhere and virtual unmaintained
[11:53] <Saviq> seb128, right
[11:54] <seb128> Saviq, I ended up doing a List<QObject *> and turn that to a QVariant, which works but doesn't give me easy sorting of the model or dynamic update ... Laney is going to turn that into a QAbstractListModel that should do the job, it's just a non trivial api and I tried to go for the easy stuff at first :p
[11:55] <seb128> Saviq, https://code.launchpad.net/~seb128/ubuntu-system-settings/storage-backend-list/+merge/184967 btw if you are curious/ have comments ;-)
[11:55] <Saviq> seb128, QAbstractListModel is only scary at first
[11:56] <Saviq> seb128, but for general use it's not *that* big of a deal
[11:56] <seb128> Saviq, well, google let me land on http://doc.qt.digia.com/4.7/qdeclarativemodels.html#c-data-models
[11:56] <seb128> Saviq, which recommends the QList<QObject *> before the qabstractmodel, saying to use that one only if the easy case doesn't work
[11:57] <seb128> Saviq, I feel like I got misleaded to spend time on the wrong solution :p
[11:57] <seb128> Saviq, that's part of learning the toolkit though, so no big deal
[11:57] <Saviq> seb128, indeed
[11:57] <seb128> Saviq, it just that people try to sell you qt/qml as an easy way to do stuff, but at this end it's as hard with any other toolkit
[11:57] <Saviq> seb128, sure, the backends need to be there
[11:58] <Saviq> seb128, and it obviously depends on the UI you need
[11:58] <Saviq> seb128, in your case there's just more work on the backend than the UI
[11:58] <seb128> right
[11:58] <Saviq> seb128, so in that sense it's just as any other indeed
[11:58] <seb128> though my backend need at not crazy ones
[11:58] <seb128> I just need to display a list of items from a json model
[11:58] <seb128> at->are
[11:59] <seb128> anyway, moving on
[11:59] <Saviq> seb128, yeah, it's not Python (yet) ;)
[11:59] <seb128> Saviq, thanks for listening to my semi-ranting and still providing constructive hints ;-)
[11:59] <Saviq> where there's barely anything you're the first one doing
[11:59] <seb128> Saviq, right, it has potential, as said the xmlmodel magic is awesome
[12:00] <Saviq> with python someone somewhere did what you need already in 99% of the cases, with QML we're the ones ploughing through
[12:01] <Saviq> seb128, and yeah, well... as soon as you have the second place where you need to parse json... maybe looking at the Json model is not that bad...
[12:01] <seb128> yeah, I was somewhat hopping that more of the heavy lifting would have been done by the other people who have been using it before us
[12:01] <Saviq> we might even try to push it into Qt or our SDK at least
[12:01] <Saviq> seb128, that's the problem - there really isn't that much use of QML out there still
[12:01] <Saviq> seb128, with unity-2d we were one of the biggest projects with it at that time
[12:01] <seb128> right
[12:02] <Saviq> maybe not so much nowadays with Blackberrys and such
[12:02] <seb128> which is why I though more would be done
[12:02] <seb128> I though that with the BB and Jolia out there we would have a bit more of the "standard usecase" covered
[12:03] <seb128> but they didn't use it for that long either
[12:03] <seb128> it's going to get there, eventually ;-)
[12:03] <seb128> Saviq, https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-12117 btw
[12:04] <seb128> doesn't seem to be actively worked on atm though
[12:05] <mzanetti> Saviq: just saw this stop by in the debug output: file:///usr/share/gallery-app/rc/qml/Utility/UbuntuApplicationWrapper.qml:19:1: module "Ubuntu.Application" is not installed
[12:06] <mzanetti> I guess we have a problem :/
[12:06] <greyback> mzanetti: yep, saw it too. It's on my list
[12:06] <Saviq> mzanetti, we renamed to Unity.Application?
[12:06] <Saviq> dang
[12:07] <Saviq> let's push to fix bug #1186556 then
[12:07] <Saviq> so that we can get rid of those completely
[12:08] <mzanetti> greyback: another issue (not high priority tho) is that the Mocked ApplicationManager doesn't use icon path's but only the appId
[12:08] <mzanetti> greyback: so right now, running on the desktop breaks icons in the launcher
[12:08] <greyback> mzanetti: ack. Could you log a quick bug for me please?
[12:08] <mzanetti> ok
[12:12] <greyback> tnx
[12:19] <Saviq> mzanetti, you up for a review of https://code.launchpad.net/~saviq/ubuntu/saucy/qtdeclarative-opensource-src/add-qtquick-delegate-range/+merge/184774 ?
[12:20] <Saviq> mzanetti, obviously the .patch file does not need a review, as it's applied to the code already
[12:30] <greyback> Saviq: I hold off on this, to encourage gallery folks to use Qt.openUrlExternally:  https://code.launchpad.net/~gerboland/gallery-app/gallery-app-fix-appman/+merge/185030
[12:31] <Saviq> greyback, thing is... it's not ready yet
[12:31] <Saviq> greyback, https://code.launchpad.net/~aacid/platform-api/papi.rules.typo/+merge/182354
[12:31] <Saviq> https://code.launchpad.net/~aacid/qtubuntu/qtubunturl/+merge/181752
[12:31] <Saviq> greyback, and with tvoss away, ricmm on a sprint
[12:32] <greyback> Saviq: ah, I thought it was. Ok
[12:32] <Saviq> greyback, won't get done before next week, so let's just fix it
[12:32] <greyback> Saviq: ack
[12:32] <Saviq> greyback, thanks
[12:35] <mzanetti> Saviq: I hoped not having to review this :D
[12:42] <Saviq> mzanetti, ;D
[12:43] <Saviq> mzanetti, why? it's actually pretty small
[12:43] <Saviq> mzanetti, but if you refuse, I'll find someone else ;)
[12:43]  * mzanetti never refuses
[12:43]  * Saviq notes that down
[12:43] <mzanetti> haha
[12:44] <mzanetti> Saviq: ok... I'll try to get that done soonish.
[12:44] <Saviq> mzanetti, thanks
[13:03] <veebers> mzanetti: hey how are you doing?
[13:03] <mzanetti> veebers: dude... isn't it like 3am for you?
[13:03] <veebers> mzanetti: heh, I'm in Boston on a sprint ^_^
[13:04] <mzanetti> ah... you're at the sprint
[13:04] <mzanetti> right
[13:04] <mzanetti> yeah... doing good now... didn't do so well in our hangout this morning. luckily noone showed up :D
[13:05] <veebers> mzanetti: oh the sync meeting? I thought that I deleted the ones for this week?
[13:05] <mzanetti> veebers: yes you did...
[13:05] <mzanetti> veebers: obviously I noticed that after getting up and ready for the hangout :D
[13:05] <mzanetti> coding till 1:30 am and hangouts at 8:30 am don't go well together
[13:05] <veebers> mzanetti: oh I see now :-P Sorry I should have emailed when I did it]
[13:06] <mzanetti> veebers: no... really not your fault
[13:06] <mzanetti> anyways... how is Otto?
[13:06] <veebers> mzanetti: it's annoying me because I almost did send an email but didn't :-P Also, I've deleted the next one on Monday as I get back that day and will probably be in bed
[13:07] <mzanetti> ack
[13:08] <veebers> mzanetti: ah right so I'll ping fginther about that today (now with the qa/ci split) I talked to him about it yesterday
[13:10] <kgunn> greyback: hey...so, i am assuming the pending image has unity-mir landed in it ?
[13:11] <kgunn> at least from the scrollback on #ubuntu-touch
[13:11] <kgunn> i got on late...but misses asac
[13:11] <kgunn> i assume there is a script to switch to mir ? from sf...
[13:11] <kgunn> or i should ask...how does one switch ?
[13:12] <greyback> kgunn: I've only landed the last piece there under an hour ago. The next pending image will have it in, for sure. I need to find out when it is generated
[13:13] <kgunn> greyback: ah..dang
[13:21] <Saviq> greyback, we can always ask to trigger one
[13:21] <Saviq> greyback, as there's only going to be one later today
[13:22] <greyback> Saviq: Good to know. When we're ready, we'll have one spun up then
[13:23] <kgunn> Saviq: curious...why only one later today ?
[13:24] <Saviq> kgunn, there's only two images daily
[13:24] <Saviq> kgunn, we daily release 4 times a day
[13:25] <Saviq> kgunn, but only build an image twice
[13:26] <kgunn> Saviq: consider me educated :)....i didn't realize that...thot release lead to image
[13:26] <kgunn> realizing now image means release plus load of tests
[13:26] <kgunn> and duh...i've only ever seen 2 images a day
[13:27] <mzanetti> veebers: fyi. we have the biweekly shell hangout now. if you wanna join
[13:28] <sil2100> bregma: hello!
[13:28] <bregma> sil2100, howdy!!
[13:29] <veebers> mzanetti: I'm keen, just in a meeting. Can you link me and I'll try pop in
[13:29] <mzanetti> ack
[13:29] <sil2100> bregma: sorry to ping again with bad news, but it seems unity FTBFS for amd64 and i386 because of failing unit tests
[13:29] <sil2100> bregma: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/149963225/buildlog_ubuntu-saucy-amd64.unity_7.1.0%2B13.10.20130911.2-0ubuntu1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[13:30] <bregma> sil2100, https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/1223561
[13:30] <sil2100> Right! How can we get this fixed?
[13:31] <bregma> we have to figure out a way to rewrite the tests so it works with the new libdbusmenu
[13:31] <bregma> it's always a problem when folks justthrow their changes over the fence and run
[13:32] <sil2100> heh, right
[13:32] <Saviq> uh oh
[13:33] <Saviq> I broke hangout :D
[13:33] <Saviq> mzanetti, can you drop out and back in, otherwise it won't let me in :D
[13:33] <greyback> lol
[13:33] <Saviq> "You can't join this hangout because you blocked one of the users. You can make a new one instead."
[13:33] <Saviq> d'oh
[13:54] <Saviq> mzanetti, well, it's a change to how the right edge behaves
[13:54] <Saviq> mzanetti, as now you just pull a single app in in one gesture
[13:55] <mzanetti> Saviq: in that prototype I can't see any difference to that really
[13:55] <Saviq> mzanetti, the first one was broken
[13:55] <mzanetti> Saviq: might be because mouse handling is somewhat broken tho
[13:55] <Saviq> mzanetti, lp:~willow-team/willow/RightEdgeNavigation
[13:55] <mzanetti> ah. was the second link any different?
[13:55] <Saviq> yes, no "Phone"
[13:55] <mzanetti> ah...
[13:56] <mzanetti> wow
[13:56] <mzanetti> looks amazing
[13:56] <mzanetti> no clue how usable it will be... but it looks good :D
[14:16] <greyback> mzanetti: do you know: what listens for a bottom edge swipe to show the application toolbar?
[14:16] <greyback> mzanetti: I thought it used to be the bottomBarVisibilityCommunicatorShell
[14:16] <mzanetti> greyback: it's the toolbar itself
[14:16] <mzanetti> greyback: wait
[14:16] <mzanetti> greyback: you talking about apps? or the black one in the shell?
[14:17] <greyback> mzanetti: I open a web browser, the toolbar hides. I want to show that toolbar again
[14:17] <mzanetti> greyback: yeah... it's the Panel itself... it creates a 2 gu area at the bottom
[14:18] <mzanetti> greyback: timp might be able to provide details
[14:54] <Cimi> hey tedg
[14:54] <tedg> Howdy Cimi
[15:00] <veebers> mzanetti, Saviq: you have a moment? I'm having issues running a test script using qmlscene when unity8 is using mocks.
[15:00] <mzanetti> sure
[15:01] <veebers>  I have a desktop file and I'm using the desktop_file_hint. It works when I run the command [1] under a `start unity8` session, but when I export the mock paths etc. (i.e. what the autopilot tests do) I don't see the application pop up
[15:01] <veebers> does that sounds weird to you?
[15:01] <Saviq> veebers, on the device?
[15:02] <veebers> Saviq: yes
[15:02] <Saviq> veebers, or regardless - yeah, we're still using mocked applications
[15:02] <Saviq> veebers, i.e. placeholder images
[15:02] <veebers> Saviq: oh right, does that mean that I can't run an actual application while under those conditions?
[15:02] <Saviq> veebers, obviously we need to move away from that
[15:03] <Saviq> veebers, yes, if unity8 is using the Unity.Application mock
[15:03] <mzanetti> well... we need to keep that in the mock
[15:03] <mzanetti> but autopilot is NOT supposed to use the mock
[15:03] <Saviq> yeah, ultimately it should not
[15:03] <Saviq> but we just never got around to switching to the real backend for it
[15:04] <veebers> mzanetti: oh, so are the autopilot tests doing something wrong then? (with the exports for QML2_import_path and ld_library_path)
[15:04] <mzanetti> yes
[15:04] <veebers> mzanetti: rats, right so I need to figure out what it should actually be doing
[15:04] <mzanetti> veebers: well... for the lightdm stuff we don't have the real thing in place yet. so that's why we introduce the mocks to be able to start writing tests
[15:04] <mzanetti> veebers: but the mocks are supposed to be used for unit tests (qmltestrunner)
[15:05] <mzanetti> veebers: autopilot supposed to do integration tests => test the real thing
[15:05] <Cimi> tedg, hay, was wondering if there was some update on the wifi plugin
[15:05] <veebers> mzanetti: aye, correct. I guess stuff was pulled over with the revamp of the autopilot suite
[15:05] <veebers> mzanetti: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/6092858/
[15:06] <mzanetti> yep
[15:06] <tedg> Cimi, Uhm, nothing really news worthy.  Working on it right now infact :-)
[15:06] <veebers> that is in effect what we're doing
[15:06] <veebers> mzanetti: so is any of that needed?
[15:06] <mzanetti> veebers: so in the mid-term that should go away for autopilot
[15:06] <Cimi> tedg, good
[15:06] <tedg> Cimi, Connecting models to delegates to factories to.... and wondering when this gets easy :-)
[15:06] <Cimi> tedg, second question, dednick as well… I did some work on system components, to become indicators. It's missing backends
[15:06] <veebers> mzanetti: alright, so no env exports needed then? or do we still need the lightDM stuff?
[15:07] <mzanetti> veebers: the qml2_import_path should not be there... for the others you'd need ask mterry on the current state and plans
[15:07] <Cimi> (date time, users, media player etc etc...)
[15:07] <Cimi> what do we do for them?
[15:07] <veebers> mzanetti: awesome will do. Thanks
[15:07] <tedg> Cimi, ?  I'm confused.  You did the QML widgets?
[15:07] <mzanetti> veebers: I'm not entirely sure how to autopilot the real thing with lightdm...
[15:07] <mzanetti> veebers: so that might stay an exception (altough I'd prefer not)
[15:07] <tedg> Cimi, My guess would be that you need to put them in dednick's MenuItemFactory class to instantiate them.
[15:08] <Cimi> tedg, https://code.launchpad.net/ubuntu-settings-components
[15:08] <mterry> mzanetti, veebers:  I think I 'm missing something in the scrollback due to disconnects.  What's up?
[15:08] <veebers> mzanetti: ack. thanks
[15:08] <mzanetti> mterry: the fact that our autopilot tests use mocks is bad
[15:08] <mzanetti> mterry: and we should steer away from it instead of using more of them
[15:08] <tedg> Cimi, Yeah, so they need to get used by dednick's code in Unity8, no?
[15:09] <mzanetti> mterry: so the question is what the plans are in regard to autopilot the real thing with lightdm
[15:09] <tedg> Cimi, By backend you mean plugged into Unity8
[15:09] <mzanetti> mterry: which I agree can be somewhere between extremely tricky and impossible
[15:09] <mterry> mzanetti, I always figured lightdm was a reasonable thing to mock, because we don't want to set up machines with real accounts that we'd need, eh?
[15:09] <mzanetti> mterry: actually we should... in theory
[15:10] <Cimi> tedg, yep I think
[15:10] <mterry> mzanetti, is our QA machinery even remotely able to?
[15:10] <dednick> Cimi: components for indicators?
[15:10] <mzanetti> veebers: ^
[15:10] <Cimi> dednick, yes
[15:10] <dednick> they need to go in the Indicators.MenuItemFactory to be instantiated by the backends
[15:11] <dednick> Cimi: it has a string to component mapping
[15:11] <mzanetti> mterry: there's not muck point of integration tests when mocking the integrational parts :) when just testing the greeter code itsel, qmltests would be way better
[15:11] <mzanetti> mterry: that's the main thing behind the discussion
[15:11] <veebers> mzanetti, mterry thats a good question
[15:11] <Cimi> dednick, are you planning to come to the office in next days? would be better to chat live
[15:11] <mterry> mzanetti, well...  you can still test other bits :)
[15:11] <tedg> dednick, Is it possible we could put that factory in the library as well?  I've copied it for system settings, but it seems like it'd be better to include.
[15:11] <dednick> Cimi: didnt have any plans to
[15:12] <mterry> mzanetti, I think we tend towards qmltests for the greeter itself
[15:12] <mzanetti> but as I said... I have no clue yet how to autopilot something with logging out the user
[15:12] <veebers> mzanetti, mterry are we able to setup the accounts stuff programatically?
[15:12] <mterry> mzanetti, we need a robot arm driving the machine  :)
[15:12] <veebers> ^_^
[15:12] <mzanetti> don't we have students?
[15:12] <dednick> tedg: mmm. it's very unitymenumodel speficific in the factory.
[15:12] <mterry> veebers, uh, I mean, I could probably write a script to do so...  I just don't know if we have capabilities to run such things sensibly with our QA setup
[15:13] <tedg> dednick, Sure, but do we expect anyone to use System Components without Unity Menu Model?
[15:14] <dednick> tedg: not all the setttings have indicator backends
[15:15] <tedg> dednick, The good ones do ;-)
[15:15] <tedg> dednick, But what I'm saying is that they're still going to be pulling in that lib, they'd just not use the factory in that case.
[15:15] <dednick> tedg: ;) i guess the plugins for settings which use indicators will use the same thing
[15:15] <tedg> dednick, So we're not adding a dependency or anything they don't already have.
[15:15] <dednick> tedg: yeah i guess so
[15:16] <dednick> Cimi: i was working on getting the ubuntu-settings-components package into a workable form so I could put all the indicator items in there.
[15:16] <Cimi> dednick, great, can I help?
[15:17] <veebers> mterry: well we can incorporate it into the autopilot tests itself. What specific capabilities are you concerned about?
[15:17] <veebers> i.e. what capabilities are there (that I'm not aware of)
[15:18] <dednick> Cimi: i've been pulled onto something else in the intrim, and it's not really in a fully working form yet. Are you wanting to do this immediately?
[15:18] <Saviq> mzanetti, veebers but the fact that we *are* using the application mock is on purpose
[15:18] <Saviq> mzanetti, veebers as no one looked yet at moving away from it
[15:18] <Cimi> dednick, it was one of my tasks so I am happy to help
[15:18] <Saviq> i.e. making sure that no apps are left running when you exit etc.
[15:19] <Saviq> as AFAIK there's no way for autopilot on touch to handle that
[15:19] <dednick> Cimi: ok, well i'll try get it into shape quickly and you can take over my branch maybe?
[15:19] <veebers> Saviq: understood. Perhaps for the specific tests I'm looking at I can do something different with the mocks (or perhaps this isn't the best place for the tests)
[15:19] <Cimi> dednick, yes
[15:20] <veebers> Saviq: if you launch the app through autopilot it ensures that apps are killed at test end, but not if you 'click' on an application to launch it
[15:20] <dednick> Cimi: ok, give me 30 minutes or so.
[15:20] <Cimi> dednick, no problem
[15:20] <Saviq> veebers, I believe the blocker for us to move away from the application mock is autopilot's ability to kill the processes on touch
[15:20] <Saviq> veebers, yeah, exactly
[15:20] <Saviq> veebers, AFAIK there was some work towards that, but not completed yet
[15:20] <Saviq> or waiting for the new app manager under Mir, at least
[15:21] <Saviq> I *think*
[15:21] <Saviq> veebers, but obviously thomi knows more
[15:22] <veebers> Saviq: ack, right I'll touch base with him and see further. At this point I might see about changing the mocks for this test specifically. Thanks
[15:22] <Saviq> veebers, yeah, that might work, too
[15:32] <mzanetti> Saviq: greyback: https://code.launchpad.net/~mzanetti/unity-api/launcher-and-appmanager/+merge/185085
[15:33] <Saviq> mzanetti, 107	+ /// @cond
[15:33] <Saviq> 108	+ void applicationManagerChanged();
[15:33] <Saviq> 109	+ /// @cond
[15:33] <Saviq> mzanetti, should be @endcond?
[15:33] <mzanetti> Saviq: yes
[15:34] <Saviq> mzanetti, hmm, didn't we establish this morning that this won't work?
[15:34] <Saviq> mzanetti, i.e. we need a common library with ApplicationManagerInterface for this to work?
[15:34] <mzanetti> Saviq: it works for the mock in this case
[15:35] <mzanetti> Saviq: as it doesn't really load the real appmanager plugin
[15:35] <mzanetti> but compiles the application mock itself
[15:35] <Saviq> mzanetti, yeah
[15:35] <mzanetti> Saviq: won't register this in the real launcherplugin ofc
[15:35] <Saviq> mzanetti, yeah, but that essentially means that we need the common library *now*
[15:36] <Saviq> mzanetti, for Unity.Application and Unity.Launcher to work together
[15:36] <Saviq> mzanetti, as we need to pass the ApplicationManager from Unity.Application to Unity.Launcher
[15:36] <mzanetti> Saviq: no... we don't really *need* it now. but it would be cleaner, yes
[15:36] <greyback> yeah it would be cleaner
[15:36] <mzanetti> Saviq: it works for now if the application plugin registers stuff
[15:37] <Saviq> mzanetti, even if both plugins compile their own copy of ApplicationManagerInterface?
[15:37] <mhr3_> pstolowski, pls https://code.launchpad.net/~mhr3/unity-scope-home/fix-1223940/+merge/185088
[15:37] <Saviq> interesting...
[15:37] <mhr3_> eh, wrong channel
[15:37] <mzanetti> Saviq: yes... seems to do
[15:37] <mzanetti> Saviq: that's why I was a bit surprised that it didn't work when registering the type in main.cpp
[15:38] <mzanetti> I would have expected that to work
[15:38] <Saviq> mzanetti, btw, I asked thostr to invite you to a dash preview-related mtg tomorrow, I'll try to be there, but if not, you have my "power and trust" as thostr called it
[15:38] <mzanetti> ack
[15:38] <Saviq> mzanetti, if I'm not there and you don't conclude, we'll revisit next week
[15:38] <greyback> why did I read that as "power and thrust" ?
[15:39]  * mzanetti opens dict.leo.org
[15:39] <mzanetti> hehe
[15:40] <mzanetti> Saviq: greyback: my favorite lines from that merge are lines 173 and 174
[15:40] <greyback> mzanetti: yeah, I had just noticed that
[15:40] <Saviq> lol
[15:41] <mzanetti> stupid test... you got your chance to check the property... now its too late
[15:42] <Saviq> hehe
[15:55] <greyback> mzanetti: hey, you mentioned to me this morning I broke application icons in unity8 on the desktop. Which icons are broken, in the launcher?
[15:55] <mzanetti> greyback: your mixing up 2 things
[15:55] <greyback> so I broke 2 things? Oh yay :D
[15:55] <mzanetti> greyback: the one in the morning is that newly launched apps are not added any more to the launcher (on the current phone image that is)
[15:56] <mzanetti> greyback: the other isn't visible yet. That's only in the mock for the appmanager. icon() returns the appId instead of the "url to the icon"
[15:56] <mzanetti> greyback: and the latter one will only be visible when using the fake appmanager. so no biggie
[15:57] <mzanetti> greyback: the former one will be fixed by me in my upcoming merge that integrates the appmanager for real
[15:57] <greyback> mzanetti: oh ok, I'll not bother then
[15:57] <mzanetti> ack
[15:58] <greyback> mzanetti: fake appmanager got running "./run --fake" right?
[15:58] <mzanetti> greyback: on the desktop you always get the fake app manager
[15:58] <mzanetti> so far
[15:58] <mzanetti> but yes, with --fake too
[15:58] <greyback> ok, so when I just use "./run" I have no icons in the launcher (except dash)
[16:01] <dednick> Saviq: ping
[16:41]  * greyback afk for a few hours
[16:54] <Saviq> dednick, pong
[16:54] <dednick> Saviq: sorry, unping
[16:55] <Saviq> dednick, no worries :)
[16:59]  * mzanetti is fed up with mocking the appmanager :D
[17:05] <mzanetti> Saviq: here it is... I hope you don't freak out when you see what I did in the launchermodeltest.
[17:05] <mzanetti> https://code.launchpad.net/~mzanetti/unity8/launcher-and-appmanager/+merge/185107
[17:06] <mzanetti> Saviq: this will align the recent apps in the launcher with the ones on the dash \o/
[17:19] <dednick> Cimi: hm. ok, I'm not actually going to do anything with the components at the moment. It's just missing a qmldir file i think.
[17:19] <dednick> Cimi: and qmltypes would help as well.
[17:33] <bregma> sil2100, we have a fix for #1223561 in, would be be possible to kick off an extraordinary head/unity daily build job?
[17:42] <sil2100> bregma: did it get merged in already?
[17:44] <bregma> sil2100, I got the merge mail
[18:06] <dednick> mzanetti: just locked my simcard. entering pin incorrectly too many times locks out puk as well...doh.
[18:11] <mzanetti> dednick: really?
[18:11] <mzanetti> dednick: that's news to me
[18:11] <dednick> mzanetti: apparently.
[18:11] <mzanetti> dednick: what is "too many times" ?
[18:11] <mzanetti> approx
[18:12] <dednick> mzanetti: well you're allowed incorrect puk 10 times i think
[18:12] <mzanetti> ah... you entered the puk wrong 10 times in a row
[18:12] <dednick> i think it's just counting an incorrect "pin" after the 3 normal retries as puks
[18:12] <mzanetti> oh...
[18:12] <dednick> i dont think i ever sent "puk", although i may be wrong
[18:13] <dednick> i dont think i want to try again :)
[18:13] <mzanetti> that might be a bug tho...
[18:14] <mzanetti> well... don't know... could be that the specification for sim cards doesn't even support sending choosing what you enter
[18:15] <dednick> now i need a new sim card... sigh
[18:15] <dednick> shops are closed
[18:15] <dednick> putting in an invalid pin makes ofono go crazy...
[18:15] <dednick> invalid sim.
[18:44] <veebers> mzanetti: hey are you still around perchance?
[18:47] <mzanetti> veebers: sort of
[18:47] <mzanetti> :)
[18:51] <veebers> mzanetti: ah wait it's late for you sorry :-\
[18:51] <mzanetti> veebers: no worries
[18:51] <mzanetti> veebers: what's the issue?
[18:51] <veebers> mzanetti, perhaps this is a question for Saviq maybe too. I'm wanting to tell if an application is in focus or not
[18:52] <mzanetti> veebers: qmltests? or autopilot?
[18:52] <veebers> I'm told that the application managment interface (via dbus) will be available when MIR lands, and not before
[18:52] <veebers> mzanetti: autopilot
[18:52] <mzanetti> veebers: that should be doable with latest trunk
[18:53] <mzanetti> veebers: give the ApplicationManagerWrapper.qml an objectName and get it with autopilot
[18:53] <veebers> i.e. the qml introspected properties will say visible == True, I assume because as much as the qml app is aware it is visible , it's just not the one on top
[18:53] <veebers> oh really? Cool, I'll give that a poke and try
[18:53] <mzanetti> veebers: the ApplicationManager has a property "focusedApplicationId"
[18:54] <veebers> mzanetti: nice, that should be what I want, thanks. Good that you're up late :-)
[18:54] <mzanetti> well, its not that late
[18:59] <veebers> mzanetti: FYI I have a branch that removes the mocking stuff (except lightDM for now) from the autopilot tests
[18:59] <mzanetti> veebers: nice
[19:00] <veebers> mzanetti: also I had meant to ask you or Saviq (I think it was Saviq that added it) the UNITYSHELL_GSETTINGS_SCHEMA / Gio et al.
[19:08] <mzanetti> veebers: no ida about that
[19:09] <mzanetti> veebers: btw: https://code.launchpad.net/~mzanetti/autopilot-qt/fix-1218971/+merge/184753
[19:09] <mzanetti> veebers: if you have time... it's not urgent at all
[19:17] <Saviq> veebers, I didn't add it, but I might know what it's about :)
[19:19] <veebers> mzanetti: can do, might be a little later this afternoon
[19:19] <veebers> Saviq: ah ok, I assume that it's used to hide the launcher in a unity7 Desktop?
[19:19] <Saviq> veebers, aah I know now
[19:19] <veebers> i.e. on the desktop that a test is being run on (as opposed to the unity that 's actually under test)
[19:19] <Saviq> yes exactly
[19:20] <Saviq> veebers, in daily release, the tests are run in normal unity7 session
[19:20] <Saviq> veebers, and because of bug #1204480 we needed to disable it
[19:20] <Saviq> veebers, 'cause we couldn't rely on the available geometry
[19:21] <veebers> Saviq: oh ok odd :-\ Right I might just shuffle it around a little bit, add comments stating why it's there etc. Perhaps it needs to exist outside the tests themselves
[19:22] <Saviq> veebers, yeah, well, it's probably gonna go away soon enough, too
[19:22] <veebers> Saviq: ah nice, that's even better :-) Thanks
[19:22] <Saviq> veebers, as in when we start running real Unity8 with Mir on PCs
[19:22] <Saviq> veebers, when we can't have unity7 running of course
[19:23] <veebers> ah true
[19:26] <veebers> Saviq: is there a nice way to say how many tests a directory of qml tests contain? i.e. how many tests are there in tests/qmltests/Dash/?
[19:27] <Saviq> veebers, I'm afraid not
[19:27] <veebers> mzanetti, Saviq: FYI I'm going to fire up some autopilot tests covering the Dash so we have qml and autopilot coverage of the Dash
[19:27] <Saviq> veebers, although we could improve that in the run_tests script
[19:27] <Saviq> veebers, awesome
[19:28] <veebers> I'm looking at a document that shows design/expectations etc. and there is a deficiency
[19:28] <veebers> Saviq: perhaps a grep <lines starting with function test_*> | wc -l should be a quick and dirty count right?
[19:29] <Saviq> veebers, better yet, look at the results http://s-jenkins:8080/job/unity-phablet-qmluitests-saucy/1661/testReport/%28root%29/qmltestrunner/
[19:29] <veebers> Saviq: ah nice, thanks ^_^
[20:37] <Saviq> kgunn, it might be difficult for me to join, dunno if I find a place good enough to talk
[20:39] <kgunn> Saviq: good grief man....
[20:39] <kgunn> oh yeah...forgot your at the convention
[20:39] <kgunn> go to bed
[20:39] <Saviq> kgunn, can it wait until next week?
[20:39] <kgunn> yeah
[20:39] <Saviq> kgunn, let's just talk it over in person
[20:39] <kgunn> yep
[20:39] <kgunn> have a good convention Saviq
[20:39] <Saviq> kgunn, will do, soon, gotta catch a train 6am...
[20:43] <kgunn> mterry: ping
[20:52] <kgunn> mterry: so...pre mir-on-mir...assuming the current greeter is phone v1 greeter, will it/can it support custom background/wallpaper ?
[20:54] <mterry> kgunn, sorry
[20:54] <mterry> kgunn, back
[20:54] <kgunn> np
[20:54] <mterry> kgunn, yeah, it supports it today
[20:54] <kgunn> sweet
[20:54] <mterry> kgunn, the system-settings doesn't let you change it yet, but I can give you commandline if you want
[20:55] <mterry> kgunn, also, we're just one branch-land away from using lightdm (albeit in just autologin mode)
[20:55] <kgunn> mterry: got it, jasoncwarner was thinking they were blocked by integration of lightdm for this...
[20:55] <kgunn> mterry: sweet
[20:55] <mterry> still will need mir-on-mir for actual greeter stuff
[20:56]  * kgunn single handedly bringing back the 80's w/ overuse of the word "sweet"
[20:56] <kgunn> mterry: sure...
[20:56] <mterry> :)
[20:57]  * mterry goes afk for a few minutes
[21:10]  * mterry is back
[22:07] <jasoncwarner> hey mterry , thanks for that. Seb is on holiday for a bit, though so maybe sync with laney tomorrow on lightdm progress?
[22:17] <mterry> jasoncwarner, lightdm progress?  OK