| === jamesh__ is now known as jamesh | ||
| === seelaman` is now known as seelaman | ||
| cjwatson | WTF sampledata | 09:37 |
|---|---|---|
| cjwatson | wgrant: There's a sourcepackagepublishinghistory row in sampledata with a distroseries whose distribution doesn't match that of its archive. Removing the distroseries checks (for non-PPAs) causes the careful-publishing tests to try to republish it. Should I just make the relevant tests mark that series OBSOLETE and go lalalala, or should I maybe add a distribution condition to getPending*Publications as a guard against this? | 09:40 |
| cjwatson | I suspect cleaning up that bit of sampledata would be an Aegean-stables exercise | 09:40 |
| wgrant | cjwatson: I only fixed the publication factories to prevent that situation last week. Fixing a single row shouldn't be too bad. | 09:42 |
| wgrant | There was a fair bit of test fallout from the code changes, but it wasn't intractable. | 09:42 |
| wgrant | Let's see which pub it is. | 09:42 |
| cjwatson | 24 was the one I found | 09:42 |
| cjwatson | I'm more wondering whether this might be indicating something I need to guard against on prod | 09:43 |
| wgrant | It is indeed the only one. | 09:44 |
| wgrant | Hmmmmm. | 09:44 |
| wgrant | Possibly. | 09:44 |
| wgrant | I think I only ever did it on staging. | 09:44 |
| wgrant | But I was playing around with that sort of bug before I had code access, so I forget. | 09:44 |
| wgrant | Worth checking on staging, I suppose. | 09:44 |
| wgrant | We should fix the data rather than the code. | 09:44 |
| wgrant | Since the data fix is quite obvious. | 09:44 |
| wgrant | (except for sampledata) | 09:45 |
| cjwatson | Is it? status = DELETED or something, I guess | 09:45 |
| wgrant | No, obliterate the rows entirely. They would never have moved out of PENDING. | 09:45 |
| wgrant | So they are invalid and there must be no artifacts on disk. | 09:46 |
| wgrant | Hm, so it's mozilla-firefox in ubuntu-test primary. | 09:47 |
| wgrant | I don't imagine there would be much direct fallout from that. | 09:47 |
| wgrant | There are four broken SPPHs on prod. | 09:47 |
| cjwatson | Yeah, I'd just found those on DF | 09:48 |
| wgrant | One of them is mine, the other three aren't. | 09:48 |
| wgrant | Oh | 09:48 |
| wgrant | Two of them are mine, sorry. | 09:48 |
| wgrant | And the other two are in some other PPA. | 09:48 |
| wgrant | NCommander's. | 09:49 |
| wgrant | And there shouldn't be any binaries, since they could have only have been copied from debian/primary, but let's check. | 09:49 |
| cjwatson | I'm just checking that now on DF | 09:49 |
| cjwatson | Rather slower query ... | 09:49 |
| cjwatson | 0 rows | 09:49 |
| wgrant | BPPH is several times larger, and there's an extra join. | 09:50 |
| wgrant | Right | 09:50 |
| wgrant | id | archive | distroseries | status | datepublished | dateremoved | 09:50 |
| wgrant | --------+---------+--------------+--------+---------------+---------------------------- | 09:50 |
| cjwatson | So these were Debian SPPHs that were erroneously republished in Ubuntu PPAs rather than copied properly? | 09:50 |
| wgrant | 483272 | 71 | 50 | 4 | | 2009-01-26 14:03:21.732962 | 09:50 |
| wgrant | 484547 | 2919 | 49 | 4 | | 2009-06-13 12:47:14.889241 | 09:50 |
| wgrant | 484546 | 2919 | 50 | 4 | | 2009-06-13 12:47:14.889241 | 09:51 |
| wgrant | 539825 | 7823 | 50 | 4 | | 2009-07-31 06:13:14.751255 | 09:51 |
| wgrant | Does p-d-r really not restrict by distro? | 09:51 |
| cjwatson | Anyway, DELETED ones aren't a problem for this | 09:51 |
| cjwatson | We might want to clean them up anyway, but the publisher isn't going to try to republish them | 09:51 |
| wgrant | Right, we use the source archive's series in +copy-packages, and the copier used to not validate series. | 09:51 |
| cjwatson | Oh, that | 09:52 |
| wgrant | The copier now validates that the series exists in the target, and also the underlying model methods will refuse such madness as of last week. | 09:52 |
| cjwatson | OK, I guess I fix the sampledata row and run all archivepublisher and soyuz tests or something, then | 09:52 |
| wgrant | so I think we just DELETE FROM sourcepackagepublishinghistory WHERE id IN (483272, 484547, 484546, 539825); on prod and probably correct the series in sampledata. | 09:53 |
| wgrant | https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/320398 ftr | 09:53 |
| _mup_ | Bug #320398: Copy UI uses source distribution series names rather than target distribution series names <lp-soyuz> <package-copies> <phone-rtm> <ppa> <Launchpad itself:Triaged> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/320398> | 09:53 |
| cjwatson | Yeah, saw that from the phone-rtm list the other day | 09:53 |
| wgrant | I never thought it would be on me to clean my evil test data up :P | 09:54 |
| cjwatson | The more I work on Launchpad the more I understand why people hate and despise sampledata | 09:58 |
| wgrant | Uhuh. | 09:58 |
| wgrant | It wouldn't be so bad if the sampledata was a vaguely representative sample of anything. | 09:59 |
| wgrant | But, at least in the Soyuz case, it's mostly invalid crap. | 09:59 |
| cjwatson | I'm just going to try removing the two broken sampledata rows (one source, one binary). Let's see who rusts first. | 10:22 |
| wgrant | Yep. | 10:28 |
| === olli_ is now known as olli | ||
| cjwatson | wgrant: Would you mind re-reviewing https://code.launchpad.net/~cjwatson/launchpad/optimise-publish-a/+merge/226312 ? I *think* I have it right now, but it took a while to sort out the details. | 17:04 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!