[05:17] Good morning [09:57] Morning all [14:30] jibel: so did you solve your bug for https://code.launchpad.net/~jibel/phablet-tools/run_tests_from_custom_location/+merge/205033 ? [14:31] hi balloons - can you have a look at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-manual-tests/+bug/1276720 [14:31] Launchpad bug 1276720 in Ubuntu Manual Tests "Testcase fails to note relevance of existing Linux FAMILY for Installation Type default" [Low,Fix committed] [14:36] hi elfy.. wifi here is REALLY broken, so you might not even get this message. I'll look [14:36] I did - but there's no rush if it'as that fubar there :) [14:38] I forgot that you were 'working' on holiday :p [14:38] :-) ok, trying to understand. you want to select, then state it should have been selected? [14:39] elfy: ohh, I get it now [14:39] at present the testcase rabbits on about something that deosn't actually happen [14:39] it doesn't let you check a different option [14:39] I'll stop typing then [14:39] no [14:39] ok, makes sense :-) [14:40] boot the image and it's often the case that something else is selected by default [14:41] so I'm just trying to get rid of what 'might' show 'sometimes' and tell them to do what the testcase is actually about [14:41] as the manual and autoresize testcases do [14:41] yes, makes total sense. [14:41] good - I thought it did too :p [14:42] can we drop

The 'Erase disk and install FAMILY' radio button should be checked by default

[14:42] yep [14:42] I'm on board. Good catch [14:42] I'll do that now [14:42] it's the little things [14:42] yep [14:42] I'm glad you are skilled at finding them [14:43] well I just get people in xubuntu asking me stuff :) [14:44] I've been trying to keep on top of bugs that get reported with them after they've been used [14:45] balloons: pushed that dd removal - I am now off to contemplate buying a cake or not again :) [15:19] * DanChapman 's new grouper finally arrived an hour ago, dualboot touch running already. No more emulator frustrations :-D [15:26] DanChapman: the old nexus 7 or the 2013 nexus 7? [15:30] balloons, 2012 i nearly went for 2013 then noticed it's not supported atm. anyway it was a bargain £60 brand new :-D [15:49] balloons, I didn't have time to fix it yet [15:50] jibel: no worries [16:01] balloons: do you want me to merge and sync the tracker if you've got fubar interwebs [16:10] elfy: yes, if you are able I would appreciate it in this case [16:13] balloons: no problem :) [16:18] balloons: done [16:23] DanChapman: I was just peering @ ubiquity builds, looking much better, but I still see things like this: https://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/job/ubiquity_ap-ubuntu_devel_daily-test_english_default/84/ARCH=amd64,label=rabisu/testReport/junit/ubiquity_autopilot_tests.tests.test_english_default/EnglishDefaultInstallTestCase/test_default_install/ [16:27] balloons, yes that is bug 1267116 it is a PITA :-p [16:27] bug 1267116 in autopilot-gtk (Ubuntu) "ubiquity crashed with SIGSEGV in GtkNode::MatchStringProperty()" [Medium,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1267116 [16:29] ahh, I'm already subbed [16:30] DanChapman: and this is unique to the lab yes? [16:31] the bug you mentioned was fixed a bit ago, and it's still occuring, so [16:31] balloons, indeed. We've never been able to successfully reproduce it locally :-( [16:32] yes, just making sure I've got everything straight. So, I'm liable to forget, but this is worth looking at seeing if we can change the test a bit to prevent this from occuring? [16:33] pitti is the autopilot-gtk guy, but he seemed confused about what the cause was [16:33] yeah, this bug is a mystery to me, and it's utterly hard to reproduce now [16:33] we did three attempts of fixing which made it better, but it seems it's not completely fixed yet [16:41] pitti DanChapman, how do you want to go forward with it then? DanChapman can we modify the tests perhaps to avoid the condition? That could mean we are covering it up or ignoring it; pitti do you think this is a bigger issue that we shouldn't try and workaround, or might it be something funny specific to ubiquity [16:43] balloons the only other option I can think of is to have one mighty long timeout over the point of failure. (Which i don't like the sound of :-S ) SOmething like 15 -20 min time i presume would ensure we get to the end [16:44] DanChapman: can we be a bite more elegant that that? But yes I was thinking of adding a wait of some sort, so long as we weren't just burying a problem [16:45] DanChapman: we really don't know much about this, except that it's extremely rare; as soon as we get some smaller-scale reproducer it will be possible to investigate [16:47] balloons, currently while polling on the progressbar (which is point of fail) it use decremental waits starting at 5/7 secs can't remember now and as it gets closer to 100% we speed it up so that we don't miss the 100% before it defaults back to 0 [16:49] * pitti waves goodbye for the weekend [16:49] pitti have a good one [16:51] bye pitti ! [16:52] DanChapman: it sounds like from what Martin was saying since we can [16:52] t reproduce, we are stuck fixing it. Perhaps we should explore adding the workaround [16:53] balloons, I could try putting a long wait in and let it run over the weekend and review it monday if it changes nothing i will revert it back [16:54] DanChapman: I don't think it would hurt anything.. how do you feel about it? [16:58] balloons, it's worth a go :-). I'll get that done now before the next builds are ready [17:28] balloons, could you do a quick review of https://code.launchpad.net/~dpniel/ubiquity/bug_1267116/+merge/205431 for me please and i'll get it merged [17:29] DanChapman: I won't be able to run, I'm on a dinky laptop :-) [17:30] but I will do a sanity check review for you [17:31] :-D thanks it's a simple one anyway just increase timeout and stop the progresspage tests running [17:31] right.. is 15 mins enough? [17:32] I spoke with jibel and they will timeout after an hour (the jobs that is), so we are safe [17:33] done and approved [17:42] balloons, cool I reckon 15 mins should be enough, they run quite quick in the lab [19:50] balloons, hi [19:52] Letozaf_: howdy [19:53] balloons, I saw about those conflicts with trunk in music app [19:54] Letozaf_: it passed the build, after I had ci look into it [19:54] My phone is on the fritz, I'm trying to test and approve it [19:54] balloons, oh fiew! [19:54] balloons, so everything "is ok" [19:56] Letozaf_: yes indeed :-) [19:56] balloons, :D [20:05] Letozaf_: so this is gonna take a bit for running, but I don't forsee any errors [20:06] balloons, I ran the tests about 6 times and got no errors, so I am quite positive :) [20:07] I'm about to head out but I will approve :-) [20:07] have a great weekend! [20:07] balloons, have a great weekend too :) [20:11] Letozaf_: approved [20:11] balloons, thanks :D === jackson is now known as Guest89321 === Guest89321 is now known as Noskcaj [22:01] one of the Xubuntu testers just noticed this, pictures missing on this page? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/QATracker [22:02] supersededbuilds.png and testcaseexpanded.png [22:02] anyone know where those ended up, or if they could be replaced easily? [22:03] pleia2, probably easiest to replace them [22:03] see, I was hoping the creator just had them lurking around their harddrive and could just upload :) [22:04] maybe balloons, but he's away for the weekend [22:04] yeah