=== jamesh__ is now known as jamesh === seelaman` is now known as seelaman [09:37] WTF sampledata [09:40] 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] I suspect cleaning up that bit of sampledata would be an Aegean-stables exercise [09:42] cjwatson: I only fixed the publication factories to prevent that situation last week. Fixing a single row shouldn't be too bad. [09:42] There was a fair bit of test fallout from the code changes, but it wasn't intractable. [09:42] Let's see which pub it is. [09:42] 24 was the one I found [09:43] I'm more wondering whether this might be indicating something I need to guard against on prod [09:44] It is indeed the only one. [09:44] Hmmmmm. [09:44] Possibly. [09:44] I think I only ever did it on staging. [09:44] But I was playing around with that sort of bug before I had code access, so I forget. [09:44] Worth checking on staging, I suppose. [09:44] We should fix the data rather than the code. [09:44] Since the data fix is quite obvious. [09:45] (except for sampledata) [09:45] Is it? status = DELETED or something, I guess [09:45] No, obliterate the rows entirely. They would never have moved out of PENDING. [09:46] So they are invalid and there must be no artifacts on disk. [09:47] Hm, so it's mozilla-firefox in ubuntu-test primary. [09:47] I don't imagine there would be much direct fallout from that. [09:47] There are four broken SPPHs on prod. [09:48] Yeah, I'd just found those on DF [09:48] One of them is mine, the other three aren't. [09:48] Oh [09:48] Two of them are mine, sorry. [09:48] And the other two are in some other PPA. [09:49] NCommander's. [09:49] And there shouldn't be any binaries, since they could have only have been copied from debian/primary, but let's check. [09:49] I'm just checking that now on DF [09:49] Rather slower query ... [09:49] 0 rows [09:50] BPPH is several times larger, and there's an extra join. [09:50] Right [09:50] id | archive | distroseries | status | datepublished | dateremoved [09:50] --------+---------+--------------+--------+---------------+---------------------------- [09:50] So these were Debian SPPHs that were erroneously republished in Ubuntu PPAs rather than copied properly? [09:50] 483272 | 71 | 50 | 4 | | 2009-01-26 14:03:21.732962 [09:50] 484547 | 2919 | 49 | 4 | | 2009-06-13 12:47:14.889241 [09:51] 484546 | 2919 | 50 | 4 | | 2009-06-13 12:47:14.889241 [09:51] 539825 | 7823 | 50 | 4 | | 2009-07-31 06:13:14.751255 [09:51] Does p-d-r really not restrict by distro? [09:51] Anyway, DELETED ones aren't a problem for this [09:51] We might want to clean them up anyway, but the publisher isn't going to try to republish them [09:51] Right, we use the source archive's series in +copy-packages, and the copier used to not validate series. [09:52] Oh, that [09:52] 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] OK, I guess I fix the sampledata row and run all archivepublisher and soyuz tests or something, then [09:53] 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] 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 [09:53] Yeah, saw that from the phone-rtm list the other day [09:54] I never thought it would be on me to clean my evil test data up :P [09:58] The more I work on Launchpad the more I understand why people hate and despise sampledata [09:58] Uhuh. [09:59] It wouldn't be so bad if the sampledata was a vaguely representative sample of anything. [09:59] But, at least in the Soyuz case, it's mostly invalid crap. [10:22] I'm just going to try removing the two broken sampledata rows (one source, one binary). Let's see who rusts first. [10:28] Yep. === olli_ is now known as olli [17:04] 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.