[04:31] <FourDollars> Hi, I am trying to test the webhook usage for lp:~oem-solutions-engineers/oem-dev-tools/+git/oem-scripts but it won't call the webhook I added. Is there any problem?
[04:31] <FourDollars> Recent deliveries of https://code.launchpad.net/~oem-solutions-engineers/oem-dev-tools/+git/oem-scripts/+webhook/13229 is always empty. Although I made https://code.launchpad.net/~fourdollars/oem-dev-tools/+git/oem-scripts/+merge/384887 for it.
[04:31] <FourDollars> But it works fine if I added the webhook on lp:~fourdollars/oem-dev-tools/+git/oem-scripts.
[04:31] <FourDollars> How can I use the webhook on lp:~oem-solutions-engineers/oem-dev-tools/+git/oem-scripts?
[04:38] <wgrant> FourDollars: What's the event configuration for the webhook?
[04:40] <FourDollars> wgrant: Enabled git push,merge proposal, active and use secret.
[04:44] <wgrant> FourDollars: There are some complications around webhooks for private repositories, but it all looks right to me. If you have the merge-proposal:0.1 event type selected, it'll need some more digging that I can't really do right now - best if you can wait guntil the help contact is around, or ask asynchronously on https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad.
[04:45] <FourDollars> wgrant: OK. Thx.
[04:48] <wgrant> Oh, I think I may see the problem. It looks like it might assume that the owner of the repository is always a user rather than a team. But that's only from a quick glance.
[04:48] <FourDollars> Yes
[04:52] <FourDollars> It is weird that I can add the webhook on the team's Git private repositories but it won't delivery the events.
[04:56] <wgrant> FourDollars: Bugs are weird, yes :)
[04:57] <wgrant> But merge proposal privacy is more complicated than just one repository.
[04:57] <FourDollars> OK. I have asked the question on https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/691066.
[09:35] <LocutusOfBorg> hello, is launchpad having a sad day?
[09:35] <LocutusOfBorg> builders seems to be stuck, or not completing anything useful
[09:42] <SpecialK|Canon> Hm, they definitely look a smidge unhappy don't they - I'll take a look
[10:09] <LocutusOfBorg> thanks
[10:18] <SpecialK|Canon> LocutusOfBorg: Right, that should do it - things look a bit happier now - I'll keep an eye on the queue to make sure that continues
[10:53] <LocutusOfBorg> not sure SpecialK|Canon but I still smell some sadness...
[10:53] <LocutusOfBorg> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/haskell-monad-par-extras/0.3.3-11/+build/19388304
[10:55] <SpecialK|Canon> LocutusOfBorg: Hm, I think that's a different manifestation of sadness, I'll take a look
[10:55] <cjwatson> May just be backlogged after the restart.
[10:55] <cjwatson> That particular bit isn't buildd-manager, it's a queue that's processed serially.
[10:56] <LocutusOfBorg> oh, ok so even if haskell libraries are not so heavy, stuff previously in the queue might be
[10:56] <LocutusOfBorg> makes sense thanks
[10:56] <cjwatson> And I see it just processed
[10:57] <cjwatson> previously in the queue> right, exactly
[10:57] <cjwatson> 2020-06-01 10:51:28 DEBUG   firefox-trunk_78.0~a1~hg20200531r533157-0ubuntu0.19.10.1~umd1_amd64.changes can be unsigned.
[10:57] <cjwatson> for example :)
[10:57] <cjwatson> (that's slightly unfair, the time in this case was actually mostly kernels)
[10:58] <LocutusOfBorg> :D thanks twice!
[11:00] <SpecialK|Canon> Cheers
[12:51] <rbasak> Similar to bug 1860456, I'm getting a "500 Internal Server Error" when I try https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archive/primary/+sourcefiles/apache2/2.2.8-1ubuntu0.4/apache2_2.2.8-1ubuntu0.4.dsc
[12:51] <rbasak> Steps to reproduce: on Focal, with python3-ubuntutools 0.176
[12:51] <rbasak> ubuntutools.archive.UbuntuSourcePackage('apache2', '2.2.8-1ubuntu0.4').pull()
[12:52] <rbasak> ^ help please SpecialK|Canon?
[12:52] <rbasak> Colin knows the background but I'm aware you should be asked first :)
[13:02] <SpecialK|Canon> rbasak: Taking a look
[13:32] <SpecialK|Canon> rbasak: Could you file a bug about it please; given +sf/sn/sv/filename should be unambiguous, certainly something's not right there
[13:36] <rbasak> SpecialK|Canon: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-dev-tools/+bug/1881598 - thanks!
[13:36] <rbasak> Do you want a task against Launchpad also?
[13:43] <cjwatson> It's a Launchpad bug
[13:43] <cjwatson> Not ubuntu-dev-tools
[13:46] <rbasak> OK, changed.
[13:54] <SpecialK|Canon> rbasak: What's the concrete impact here? Looks like we have data issues (of the "we've ended up with two and that shouldn't happen" kind) - is this blocking you from anything at all or are we free to attempt to wrangle the inconsistency?
[13:56] <rbasak> SpecialK|Canon: it sort of blocks me from reimporting everything in main to git-ubuntu's now consistent standard, so I can declare all branches stable. I'd prefer not to have to say "all branches but X and Y are stable" though obviously that is an intermediate step. I would prefer not to work around it by injecting a dsc from somewhere else in case that inadvertently produces a non-reproducible result,
[13:56] <rbasak> though I can do that if necessary.
[13:57] <SpecialK|Canon> rbasak: Right, thanks
[13:57] <rbasak> (we already have code to inject a different source dsc URL for a particular package and version, so actually doing it is trivial)
[13:57] <cjwatson> I think we should probably discuss it in our team weekly tomorrow, if you can tolerate that much delay
[13:58] <cjwatson> It's not a straightforward situation
[13:58] <rbasak> Sure.
[13:58] <SpecialK|Canon> We have https://launchpadlibrarian.net/23154047/apache2_2.2.8-1ubuntu0.4.dsc and https://launchpadlibrarian.net/23719959/apache2_2.2.8-1ubuntu0.4.dsc so something's clearly gone wrong, but unpicking it is nontrivial as cjwatson says
[13:58] <rbasak> Sorry, I didn't say anything about timescales.
[13:58] <cjwatson> FWIW it looks like a historical copier bug
[13:58] <rbasak> If it's fixed in a couple of weeks I won't even really notice - I have plenty of other things to do before then.
[13:58] <cjwatson> https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/fXfpzbGt7R/ is the diff between the two versions in question
[13:59] <SpecialK|Canon> rbasak: Ah, fabulous, thanks
[13:59] <cjwatson> (the bug being that it didn't notice the conflict and refuse the copy)
[20:07] <ricotz> hi :), seems like the s390x builders have a problem
[21:51] <cjwatson> s390x builders should be back now
[21:54] <RikMills> \o/
[22:18] <cjwatson> Maybe.  A little bit.
[22:18] <cjwatson> But I'm very EOD