[08:36] <tomwardill> some more words to make the people merge page a bit less scary (to me at least): https://code.launchpad.net/~twom/launchpad/+git/launchpad/+merge/382274
[08:40] <cjwatson> tomwardill: LGTM, couple of additional suggestions
[08:40] <tomwardill> ah, ta
[08:40]  * tomwardill fixes
[08:44] <tomwardill> changed and landing
[12:46] <cjwatson> pappacena: http://lpbuildbot.canonical.com/builders/lp-devel-xenial/builds/1183/steps/shell_9/logs/summary (skipping the transient failure) is yours I think
[13:20] <cjwatson> tomwardill: There may actually be zero test fallout from fixing getUniqueURL to use .test or similar.  None of the matches for domain.com look like they were generated by it
[13:20] <tomwardill> cjwatson: excellent, I'll do that after I've done this credentials work then
[13:21] <cjwatson> tomwardill: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606.html is the canonical reference for this kind of thing if you don't have it already
[13:35] <tomwardill> cjwatson: how do I create a new distribution in my test instance?
[13:45] <tomwardill> ah, no matter, did it
[13:45] <tomwardill> ( /distros/+add for future travellers )
[13:45] <cjwatson> Didn't know offhand anyway :)
[13:55] <cjwatson> tomwardill: Could you request a new build of https://dogfood.paddev.net/~twom/ubuntu/+oci/test-oci-project-1/+recipe/test-oci-recipe-2, and tell me when you've done so so that I can get in quickly and strace it?
[13:56] <cjwatson> Not sure if this will work but let's see
[13:56] <tomwardill> on it now
[13:56] <tomwardill> cjwatson: requested
[13:58] <cjwatson> Bother, too slow
[13:58] <cjwatson> I'll make my own version :)
[13:58] <cjwatson> Better than bothering you all the time
[14:00] <tomwardill> righto :)
[14:01] <tomwardill> I think only the API exists on that version to create an OCI Project
[14:03] <cjwatson> I used the same project
[14:03] <cjwatson> same OCI project rather
[14:03] <tomwardill> ah, of course
[14:04]  * tomwardill tries to work out how to create a DAS for a new distribution
[14:11] <wgrant> tomwardill: +addseries, then +addport on that
[14:12] <tomwardill> wgrant: hmm, that gets me a series/distro page that looks right, but no architectures selectable when I try and create a build from my recipe
[14:15] <wgrant> tomwardill: Ah, you might need to set supports_virtualized on the Processor (needs DB hackery), or unset require_virtualized on the recipe
[14:15] <wgrant> It's also possible we check presence of a chroot to create the checkboxes, but I forget.
[14:19] <cjwatson> tomwardill: Well, it's definitely sending correct-looking proxy basic auth.  Will need to dig through the proxy rules
[14:25] <cjwatson> Ah, I think this is just that the staging proxy was out of date with the spec
[14:33] <cjwatson> tomwardill: https://dogfood.paddev.net/~cjwatson/ubuntu/+oci/test-oci-project-1/+recipe/test-oci-recipe-1/+build/5
[14:34] <cjwatson> Worked fine once I upgraded the staging proxy to have https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~canonical-launchpad-branches/canonical-mojo-specs/trunk/revision/284.  Production was done a while ago (https://portal.admin.canonical.com/C122738/)
[14:43] <tomwardill> wwooo!
[14:51] <tomwardill> well, that's quite exciting
[16:01] <cjwatson> pappacena: Did you see my message earlier about the buildbot failure?
[16:01] <pappacena> uhm, I think I missed it. I'll check buildbot
[16:05] <cjwatson> Probably a one-liner :)
[16:06] <pappacena> It seems so. :-)
[16:06] <pappacena> I'll open a MP
[16:08] <pappacena> Quick review? https://code.launchpad.net/~pappacena/launchpad/+git/launchpad/+merge/382316
[16:11] <pappacena> Well, since it's simple test change, I'll self-approve it. The test is running find on my machine now.
[16:12] <tomwardill> hah, I was just looking at it pappacena :)
[16:13] <cjwatson> Sorry, was reviewing another thing of yours :-)
[16:13] <tomwardill> my laptop is not the fastest to load a page atm
[16:13] <cjwatson> Self-approving trivial test fixes like that is fine
[16:13] <pappacena> tomwardill, cjwatson. Thanks :-)
[16:21] <tomwardill> cjwatson: bit lost in the ObjectModifiedEvent change, what would be the changed fields on a build for a create() method?
[16:39] <tomwardill> oh, wait, there's an ObjectCreatedEvent, that seems more like what I'd be after
[16:40] <tomwardill> or could do ObjectModifiedEvent with field of status
[16:40] <tomwardill> which hooks better into the rest of the lifecycle
[16:41] <cjwatson> tomwardill: create should use ObjectCreatedEvent, yes
[16:41] <cjwatson> Assuming the notified object is the object being created
[16:43] <tomwardill> cjwatson: as in 'the object that we are notifying a subscriber about'?
[16:43] <tomwardill> I can't quite parse that sentence
[16:58] <tomwardill> okay, think I got it
[17:02] <cjwatson> Right, if you're doing notify(SomeEvent(obj)) and the notification is to the effect that obj was just created, then ObjectCreatedEvent is right
[17:05] <tomwardill> yeah, that makes sense