[08:44] <ePierre> Morning everyone
[08:45] <ePierre> I'm more and more often searching in Launchpad, but going on the main website and using the limited search is quite annoying
[08:45] <ePierre> in my previous job I was using Jira, which includes a kind of query language to quickly find an issue
[08:46] <ePierre> and in addition I could couple that with Firefox address bar, so I could very quickly look for issue by number or text
[08:46] <ePierre> is there any way to do that with Launchpad?
[08:46] <ePierre> I discovered pad.lv (thank you pitti for that! :)), which is good when you want to look at an issue you already know the number, but apart from that...
[10:39] <rhuddie> pitti, ping
[10:57] <pitti> hey rhuddie
[11:04] <rhuddie> pitti, hey. I am looking at adt-run again, and trying to work out the best way to pass custom arguments to a test script
[11:05] <rhuddie> pitti, looking through the docs, there doesn't seem to be a standard way to do this
[11:05] <pitti> rhuddie: right; at most you can do some config changes etc. with --setup-commands
[11:06] <pitti> or make the test look at some other files
[11:06] <rhuddie> pitti, yes, I had a look at --setup-commands
[11:07] <rhuddie> pitti, I was also wondering, for the autopilot_module field, is there any way to pass the autopilot --config parameter?
[11:07] <rhuddie> e.g. autopilot run myscript --config key value
[11:08] <pitti> rhuddie: yes, in principle you can supply options in that, too; it's just passed verbatim to autopilot
[11:09] <rhuddie> pitti, right. I'll give that a try then
[11:09] <rhuddie> pitti, thanks. I might get back to you later if I have any other questions :)
[14:17] <balloons> jibel, do you have a moment to look at https://code.launchpad.net/~nskaggs/autopilot/add-wm-sandbox-run/+merge/242274? I'm curious if it's possible to add a flag to the bash script that has an optional argument.
[14:58] <rhuddie> balloons, hey. I am currently investigating passing variables to tests from adt-run. I heard there is an environment variable you can use to do this, and you might know about it?
[15:04] <brendand> elopio, the AppHeader CPO no longer has _show_if_not_visible it seems
[15:05] <balloons> rhuddie, passing variables? You mean passing args to autopilot?
[15:05] <brendand> elopio, is that because it's been replaced or because it's no longer needed?
[15:05] <elopio> brendand: no, timp removed it to make a nicer public method
[15:05] <elopio>  is it making something fail?
[15:06] <elopio> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-ui-toolkit/+bug/1363591
[15:06] <brendand> elopio, yes weather_app (at least one test)
[15:06] <brendand> elopio, so now you use 'ensure_visible'?
[15:07] <elopio> brendand: yes. Sorry about that. That's why I should never do workarounds with internal methods.
[15:08] <brendand> elopio, actually it seems weather app overrode 'click_action_button'. it shouldn't do that right?
[15:08] <brendand> elopio, AppHeader should already have something like that
[15:08] <rhuddie> balloons, yes, sorry. the question is how to pass arguments through adt-run to the test running. elopio mentioned there was an environment variable that you could use for this?
[15:09] <elopio> brendand: hum, doesn't it have a comment about why it was overriden?
[15:09] <elopio> I don't remember that part
[15:10] <brendand> elopio, no
[15:10] <brendand> elopio, i can delete that one then
[15:11] <elopio> brendand: I suppose it was there for a reason. But if it works deleting it, maybe that reason is no longer valid.
[15:11] <elopio> brendand: you can bzr blame to see who did it.
[15:16] <balloons> rhuddie, you can use ADT_AUTOPILOT_MODULE
[15:16] <rhuddie> balloons, thanks. I'll give that a go.
[15:17] <balloons> not sure if that's what you are after or not.. like ADT_AUTOPILOT_MODULE=ADT_AUTOPILOT_MODULE='-f subunit -o $ADT_ARTIFACTS/subunit <name>' adt-run --click=com.ubuntu.calendar --- ssh -s adb
[15:19] <rhuddie> balloons, at the moment I'm just trying to see what options are available to do this, so I'll give it a try
[15:24] <brendand> elopio, the change totally fixes the weather app tests so i will propose it
[15:24] <brendand> elopio, the override was originally done by martin borho
[15:25] <brendand> elopio, and the commit message was 'helper override' :)
[15:25] <elopio> brendand: thanks.
[15:25] <brendand> hurray for helpful commit messages :)
[15:27] <brendand> elopio, i promise i'll write a better one!
[15:28] <brendand> elopio, somehow that file ended up with two copyright headers
[15:28] <brendand> elopio, shall i fix that while i'm in here?
[15:28] <elopio> brendand: yes, please
[15:36] <brendand> elopio, hmm. it seems the override did add a sleep(2) but my testing shows the uitk version passes
[15:37] <elopio> brendand: a sleep with no comment it's better removed.
[15:37] <brendand> elopio, yes
[15:37] <brendand> elopio, it's all yours - https://code.launchpad.net/~brendan-donegan/ubuntu-weather-app/remove_app_header_override/+merge/243409
[15:50] <brendand> balloons, can i get a reminders-app landing to the store?
[15:50] <brendand> balloons, i did a fix last week which doesn't seem to have made it over yet
[15:51] <balloons> brendand, is there qa signoff for it?
[15:52] <brendand> balloons, no it's a test fix
[15:52] <balloons> all the apps on the image are frozen
[15:53] <brendand> balloons, what about vivid?
[15:53] <brendand> balloons, that seems a bit extreme that we can't fix test failures in vivid because of RTM
[15:54] <balloons> brendand, we can push updates to the store, but if you do it affects RTM as well. So they want QA signoff before pushing updates
[15:54] <brendand> balloons, they?
[15:54] <brendand> balloons, you mean me :)
[15:55] <balloons> it's been a problem in the past at times, but more folks probably feel the affects now
[15:55] <brendand> balloons, who needs to be convinced?
[15:55] <balloons> lol, "they".. yes the ambiguous "they" who prevent everything from happening.
[15:55] <brendand> balloons, if the fix required an update to app code i could understand, but it's only changing autopilot code
[15:56] <balloons> I didn't say anyone needed convinced, just that QA, as in, yes your team, must approve of any updates that go into the image. As usual, you know the drill
[15:56] <brendand> balloons, i don't think it should apply for test code
[15:56] <balloons> the tests are linked to app by revision from the manifest
[15:57] <balloons> and yes I agree we should be able to release this into vivid only
[15:57] <brendand> balloons, yes i suppose so if there was any app code updates they'd be pulled in to
[15:57] <balloons> brendand, yes any new app code would get pulled in also
[15:57] <balloons> there's a 15 revision delta
[15:58] <balloons> there's at least 2 code changes I see in the delta
[16:07] <brendand> balloons, are they bug fixes or features?
[16:07] <balloons> brendand, a bit of both seems like
[16:08] <balloons> brendand, obviously to get this in right now the simplest thing is to have CI agree to land it
[16:08] <balloons> presumably you will give the +1 for QA
[16:08] <brendand> balloons, well since it's going to land in RTM it would have to be more than CI
[16:09] <balloons> CI, QA, Landing Team and managers :-)
[16:09] <brendand> balloons, it would have to be treated like any other RTM landing
[16:09] <balloons> glhf?
[16:09] <brendand> brqt?
[16:09] <brendand> flsh?
[16:10] <brendand> balloons, sorry i thought we were asking questions consisting of random consonants...
[16:10] <balloons> brendand, making that argument for inclusion would be easier if it was only test fixes
[16:10] <balloons> brendand, hehe
[16:11] <brendand> balloons, new features are going to be a big no-no
[16:14] <brendand> balloons, i'm confused btw that this hasn't been a big issue earlier? how are popeys charges going to develop their apps when new landings require the rigmarole of QA signoff/approval every time?
[16:17] <balloons> brendand, we have been freely landing changes until the music app happened
[16:18] <balloons> as the image is/was locked down it spread to these apps as well
[16:18] <balloons> so it's not otherwise been an issue; we've done our own QA until now
[16:44] <balloons> brendand, so will you try and land this or ?
[16:45] <brendand> balloons, reminders? i don't think so, not now
[16:46] <balloons> brendand, yes, ack
[16:50] <robotfuel> balloons: can you review this simple test one line fix for me? https://code.launchpad.net/~canonical-platform-qa/ubuntu-filemanager-app/fix-context-menu-autopilot-test/+merge/243349
[16:54] <balloons> robotfuel, sure
[16:57] <balloons> robotfuel, left a comment
[17:04] <robotfuel> balloons: the smoke tests on the dash board doesn't run the same tests everyday?!
[17:05] <robotfuel> its probably due a autopilot crash, there are other test that need the same kind of fix in the filemanager app
[17:07] <robotfuel> I don't know how this got approved  File "/home/phablet/autopilot/filemanager/tests/test_context_menu.py", line 82, in test_delete_file
[17:07] <robotfuel>     self.assertEquals(files_and_folders, [])
[17:14] <balloons> robotfuel, ohh, I know actually what the deal with this is
[17:14] <balloons> the assumption behind these tests and asserts originally was a clean env
[17:15] <balloons> robotfuel, so can you update all the asserts to have some sanity around this? perhaps drop a comment as well
[17:15] <balloons> then +1 from me
[17:15] <robotfuel> balloons: I opened a bug in autopilot too, because not all the tests are being run.
[17:15] <robotfuel> there is a autopilot crash
[17:54] <robotfuel> ballons, I have all the test cases updated in test_context_menu if you want to review :) https://code.launchpad.net/~canonical-platform-qa/ubuntu-filemanager-app/fix-context-menu-autopilot-test/+merge/243349
[18:13] <balloons> robotfuel, ack, having a look
[18:15] <balloons> robotfuel, approved. I can arrange for a file manager upload to push this to the dashboard after it lands
[18:15] <robotfuel> ok thanks
[18:15] <balloons> ty
[20:15] <Letozaf_> balloons, hi
[20:18] <balloons> Letozaf_, howdy
[20:20] <Letozaf_> balloons, I finished the zip test for filemanager app, should I work on this now: https://code.launchpad.net/~nikwen/ubuntu-filemanager-app/tars/+merge/240986 ?
[20:20] <Letozaf_> balloons, by the way is there no meeting this evening ?
[20:20] <balloons> Letozaf_, ohh awesome. Yes, I believe the test should be more or less dupes of the zip right?
[20:21] <Letozaf_> balloons, yes I think so
[20:22] <balloons> if it's a pure duplicate, you can use a scenario.
[20:22] <Letozaf_> balloons, I was thinking about that, yes
[20:23] <balloons> awesome, I see your mp
[20:23] <Letozaf_> balloons, should I first wait for the zips test to be merged ?
[20:23] <balloons> I'll try and review it in a bit
[20:23] <Letozaf_> balloons, :)
[20:24] <Letozaf_> balloons, ok thanks
[20:24]  * balloons is munching a late lunch
[20:24] <balloons> Letozaf_, umm, on the timing I don't think you need to wait
[20:24]  * Letozaf_ feels sorry balloons was eating 
[20:24] <balloons> lol, not at all
[20:31] <balloons> Letozaf_, if I have any feedback I'll leave it for you for tomorrow. A first glance it looks nice!
[20:32] <Letozaf_> balloons, ok thanks
[20:32] <balloons> thank you, good work as usual
[20:33] <balloons> biab
[20:34] <Letozaf_> :)
[21:58] <balloons> doug5, how are you doing? Did you try starting on the bottomedge test?