[04:06] <mup> PR snapd#10165 closed: tests: start of tests about services vs snapd refreshes  <Created by pedronis> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10165>
[04:11] <mup> PR snapd#10165 opened: tests: start of tests about services vs snapd refreshes  <Created by pedronis> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10165>
[05:54] <mborzecki> morning
[06:07] <mup> PR snapcraft#3504 opened: extensions/desktop: use fonts from $XDG_DATA_DIRS, and remove unnecessary includes <Created by jhenstridge> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3504>
[06:20] <zyga> good morning
[07:05] <pstolowski> morning
[07:15] <mvo> good morning pstolowski
[07:35] <mborzecki> pstolowski: zyga mvo hey
[07:36] <zyga> hey guys!
[07:56] <mborzecki> ehh what a mess mess with that Requires
[07:58] <mvo> hey mborzecki and zyga !
[07:58] <zyga> :-)
[07:58] <mvo> mborzecki: yeah, it's very annoying :/
[08:04] <mborzecki> pedronis: do you know why we can't update the wrappers code to do systemctl restart?
[08:05] <pedronis> mborzecki: no, we could try to change it but it creates the problem but is not new
[08:05] <pedronis> it was always like that
[08:05] <pedronis> it's 2015, and the commit says "restart"
[08:06] <mborzecki> yeah, i'm looking at it now
[08:07] <mborzecki> hm maybe that was something related to systemd on 14.04?
[08:07] <pedronis> not sure, I think supporting 14.04 came after
[08:08] <mvo> I think we should try to move to restart being the real restart but given that it's a big change probably not for 2.50 anymore if we can avoid it, seems risky and should get some time to bake in edge
[08:10] <mborzecki> i can open a PR with systemctl restart and we'll see what parts of the test suite fail if any
[08:25] <mborzecki> hmm we also have systemd.RestartAll which isn't really called anywhere meaningful
[08:37] <mup> PR snapd#10110 closed: interfaces/builtin: introduce dsp interface <Needs Samuele review> <Squash-merge> <Created by anonymouse64> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10110>
[08:44] <pedronis> pstolowski: hi, should I re-review https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10155 or not yet?
[08:44] <mup> PR #10155: [RFC] o/snapstate: handle refresh hints <Refresh control> <Skip spread> <Created by stolowski> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10155>
[08:46] <mborzecki> hmm can we skip the gofmt check on 1.9 branch and instead run it on the latest go branch maybe?
[08:47] <mup> PR snapd#10166 opened: systemd: implement restart as a single systemctl restart call <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10166>
[08:57] <pedronis> mborzecki: it sounds we had discussion before, anyway is a bit of bad moment to make such change, it sounds something we could do early next cycle, anyway we still want/plan to move to 1.13 at least everywhere
[08:59] <mborzecki> pedronis: sure, just wanted this topic to not be forgotten, it is a bit annoying that we sprinkle the tests code (as it's usually the tests) with random comments to keep old gofmt happy
[09:34] <mborzecki> mvo: can you take a look at https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10160 ?
[09:34] <mup> PR #10160: tests, overlord: extend unit tests, extend spread tests to cover full command line support <Run nested> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10160>
[09:54] <mvo> mborzecki: sure
[09:57] <mborzecki> thanks!
[10:08] <pstolowski> pedronis: not yet, i'm about to push a smaller PR
[10:37] <mup> PR snapd#10167 opened: o/snapstate: store refresh-candidates in the state <Needs Samuele review> <Refresh control> <Created by stolowski> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10167>
[11:02] <pedronis> mborzecki: I reviewed https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10160
[11:02] <mup> PR #10160: tests, overlord: extend unit tests, extend spread tests to cover full command line support <Run nested> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10160>
[11:03] <mborzecki> pedronis: thanks
[11:16] <mvo> also reviewed it
[11:52] <mborzecki> mvo: thank you, pushing some tweaks in a bit
[12:06] <mborzecki> anyone recalls managers level tests that inject panics into tasks?
[12:32] <mvo> mborzecki: yes, "just" create an error task and add it to the change at the right point. but maybe so high-level that it's not helpful anymore :/
[13:17] <mup> PR snapcraft#3503 closed: deb: do not filter python3 packages on core20 <Created by cjp256> <Merged by sergiusens> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3503>
[13:46] <pstolowski> mborzecki: look for "error-trigger" tasks
[13:47] <pstolowski> mborzecki: and runner.AddHandler("error-trigger", erroringHandler, nil) in ifacestate_test.go
[13:47] <mborzecki> pstolowski: hm not quite the thing, i had some code that calls panic() specifically in the ode that is execued in the task handler, thats suppose to mimic an unexpected reboot
[14:18] <ijohnson> pedronis: mvo : is it okay to force push to 10164 ?
[14:18] <mvo> ijohnson: sure
[14:18] <ijohnson> ack
[14:19] <pedronis> ijohnson: right now, yes
[14:19] <ijohnson> right that's what I meant is just for now
[14:50] <ijohnson> pedronis: mvo : bboozzoo : I force pushed the systemctl impl to 10164, will take a break and work on unit tests in a bit
[15:16]  * cachio__ lunch
[16:02] <pedronis> ijohnson: hopefully I answered your question in 10164 in a clearer way
[16:03] <ijohnson> pedronis: yes that is clearer, thank you
[16:50] <ijohnson> meh this servicestatemgr.Ensure() keeps trying to write out the service units and daemon-reload for services which are mocked as existing in tests and end up confusing tests
[16:50] <ijohnson> (because the test expects the service to be mocked, not for it to actually be created)
[16:58] <pedronis> are there a lot of tests like that?
[16:59] <ijohnson> a good number in daemon weirdly enough, but it's not that big of a deal, I can work around it I think, just making all the daemon tests explicitly turn off the service ensuring
[18:29] <mborzecki> ijohnson|lunch: left a comment about InactiveEnterTimestamp, not sure it's useful at this point, as the system time should rather be stable when snapd is refreshing, whatever jumps there were, likely already happened during boot
[18:48] <mup> PR snapcraft#3505 opened: snaps: don't validate snaps before `SnapPackage.download()` <Created by Saviq> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3505>
[19:03] <ijohnson> bboozzoo: thanks I responded, I think you may have misread the code ;-)
[19:18] <mup> PR snapd#10168 opened: boot: allow `fde-setup initial-setup` to return json <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10168>
[19:58] <mup> PR snapcraft#3505 closed: snaps: don't validate snaps before `SnapPackage.download()` <Created by Saviq> <Merged by sergiusens> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3505>
[20:58] <mup> PR snapcraft#3506 opened: cli, repo: add support for UA tokens <Created by cjp256> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3506>