| [00:00] <bigjools> the text formatter is broken then, it linkifies bug\nNNN | |
| [00:06] <wgrant> bigjools: It deliberately does that, to cope with wordwrapped emails | |
| [00:06] <bigjools> see my text in bug 1081834 | |
| [00:06] <_mup_> Bug #1081834: When setting a milestone on a bug task, the edit icon ends up as the "broken graphic" <Launchpad itself:New> < https://launchpad.net/bugs/1081834 > | |
| [00:07] <bigjools> I say tough titty if it's word wrapped | |
| [00:07] <bigjools> coz now you have a broken link | |
| [00:08] <wgrant> It's probably less bad to have that extra link than it is to miss some | |
| [00:09] <bigjools> I disagree | |
| [00:09] <wgrant> Why? | |
| [00:09] <wgrant> You can just not click on that link :) | |
| [00:09] <bigjools> tell that to oops reports | |
| [00:09] <bigjools> you can just type a bug number too | |
| [00:10] <wgrant> But I can just as easily generate a bad link malevolently by typing "bug 2" in a comment | |
| [00:10] <wgrant> Those sorts of things should be (but aren't presently) excluded from OOPS reports | |
| [00:10] <bigjools> why is it even linked if it doesn't exist? | |
| [00:10] <wgrant> Because user error can cause them | |
| [00:10] <bigjools> it's ab ug | |
| [00:10] <bigjools> should not be linked | |
| [00:11] <wgrant> It's turned grey by JS if it doesn't exist. | |
| [00:11] <bigjools> a start, I suppose | |
| [00:11] <wgrant> Users can type bad URLs | |
| [00:11] <wgrant> They can type bad bug numbers too | |
| [00:12] <bigjools> well it doesn't go anywhere, I thought it was a real link, so it's opk | |
| [00:12] <wgrant> It is a real link until the JS detects that it doesn't actually exist | |
| [00:12] <wgrant> Which isn't ideal, but I think it's a reasonable compromise | |
| [00:12] <bigjools> so robots will still click it then | |
| [00:12] <wgrant> Yes | |
| [00:13] <bigjools> I am sure there was code in the formatter to not linkify non-existent bugs | |
| [00:13] <wgrant> There was, but we removed it | |
| [00:13] <wgrant> Because it was completely terrible | |
| [00:13] <bigjools> let me guess ... | |
| [00:13] <wgrant> Making a separate query for each bug reference | |
| [00:13] <bigjools> yeah | |
| [00:13] <wgrant> And it's difficult to do otherwise without a multi-pass template system, which TAL is not | |
| [00:13] <bigjools> I remember it being a problem on changelogs | |
| [00:14] <wgrant> Anyway | |
| [00:14] <wgrant> "bug 2" is just a special type of URL | |
| [00:14] <wgrant> Users can type bad URLs | |
| [00:14] <bigjools> and when I wanted to remove it to fix performance, all of Ubuntu screamed like a thousand voices in the night | |
| [00:14] <wgrant> We still linkify them | |
| [00:14] <wgrant> Why not do the same with bugs? | |
| [00:14] <wgrant> It's not harming anyone | |
| [00:15] <bigjools> ok, you're on maintenance :) | |
| [00:15] <wgrant> 404s are a discretionary sort of OOPS, since users will always be able to generate them simply by typing a bad URL somewhere on LP | |
| [00:15] * StevenK stabs gina.txt and twists the knife. | |
| [00:15] <wgrant> They don't unconditionally fall under ZOP | |
| [00:15] <bigjools> ok | |
| [00:15] <wgrant> And they don't degrade user experience | |
| [00:15] <wgrant> => meh | |
| [00:16] <bigjools> well at least you thought about it | |
| [00:17] <wgrant> The linkification of bullets isn't ideal, but there's not much we can do about it without breaking other cases | |
| [00:17] <wgrant> Of course, if you used punctuation properly it wouldn't be a problem :P | |
| [00:18] <bigjools> => meh | |
| [00:18] <bigjools> DWIM etc etc | |
| [00:18] <wgrant> Heh | |
| [00:24] <StevenK> wgrant: Hmmm, what about bug 837563? | |
| [00:24] <_mup_> Bug #837563: language-pack-exporter script raised a KeyError <lp-translations> <oops> <Launchpad itself:Triaged> < https://launchpad.net/bugs/837563 > | |
| [00:25] <StevenK> I thought OOPS prefixes were long dead | |
| [00:26] <wgrant> StevenK: Sure, the REPORTIFSEEN part of that bug is no longer relevant | |
| [00:26] <wgrant> The underlying OOPS is | |
| [01:47] <bigjools> hmmm, why would ^\s not work in my sed expression | |
| [01:48] <StevenK> \s as in 'any whitespace' ? | |
| [01:48] <bigjools> yup | |
| [01:48] <bigjools> ^\s should be leading whitespace | |
| [01:49] <bigjools> yet it matcheth not | |
| [01:49] <lifeless> \\s ? | |
| [01:50] <bigjools> nope | |
| [01:50] <bigjools> removing the ^ matches but I want to be more specific | |
| [01:51] <cjwatson> [[:space:]] | |
| [01:52] <cjwatson> \s is a perl-regex-ism | |
| [01:52] <bigjools> it's in the sed man page :) | |
| [01:52] <cjwatson> not in the one I have here it's not | |
| [01:52] <cjwatson> anyway, [[:space:]] is the POSIX form | |
| [01:53] <bigjools> ^[[:space:]] didn't work | |
| [01:53] <cjwatson> full example please | |
| [01:54] <bigjools> sed -ri "s|^[[:space:]]generator:\shttp://.*:5243/| http://bar:5243/|" test.tmp | |
| [01:54] <cjwatson> you still have a \s there | |
| [01:55] <cjwatson> and I think perhaps you mean [[:space:]]* for zero or more whitespace characters? | |
| [01:55] <bigjools> makes no difference if I change it | |
| [01:55] <cjwatson> [[:space:]] (or \s in regex engines that support that) means exactly one whitespace character | |
| [01:55] <bigjools> I want a + actually, I'll change it | |
| [01:55] <bigjools> \o/ | |
| [01:55] <bigjools> thanks cjwatson | |
| [01:56] <cjwatson> yw | |
| [01:56] <bigjools> I really hate regex | |
| [01:56] <StevenK> bigjools: You now have two problems. | |
| [01:56] <bigjools> exactly | |
| [01:56] <StevenK> Or three, if you're also dealing with mod_rewrite | |
| [01:57] <bigjools> heh | |
| [01:58] <StevenK> wgrant: Can't find OOPS-8e259d8c3b45707c6a37f986d3c8127d on carob's filesystem. :-( | |
| [02:00] <StevenK> wgrant: I wonder if we can just destroy the branch puller | |
| [02:04] <wgrant> mwhudson had plans :) | |
| [02:05] <lifeless> and doesn't now ? | |
| [02:09] <mwhudson> i just don't have time now | |
| [02:09] <mwhudson> wgrant: actually i futzed a little on the flight to linaro connect about this and wanted to talk to someone (probably you!) about this | |
| [02:11] <mwhudson> wgrant: my plan went something like this: | |
| [02:11] <mwhudson> set up a launchpad user on each importd | |
| [02:11] <mwhudson> have a fkey from codeimportmachine to this user | |
| [02:11] <mwhudson> change _canWrite to something like this: | |
| [02:11] <mwhudson> + elif branch.branch_type == BranchType.IMPORTED: | |
| [02:11] <mwhudson> + job = branch.code_import.import_job | |
| [02:11] <mwhudson> + if job.machine: | |
| [02:11] <mwhudson> + return job.machine.user == requester | |
| [02:11] <mwhudson> + else: | |
| [02:11] <mwhudson> + return False | |
| [02:11] <lifeless> mwhudson: so did you decide to stay w/Linaro or move back into Canonical ? | |
| [02:13] <wgrant> mwhudson: That's probably the cheapest way to do it, but ideally we'd also solve stacking at the same time | |
| [02:13] <mwhudson> change things around so that a lp:// url rather than a escudero url gets passed to the worker | |
| [02:13] <mwhudson> wgrant: "solve stacking"? | |
| [02:13] <wgrant> mwhudson: Stacking imports would sometimes be nice. | |
| [02:13] <mwhudson> oh right | |
| [02:14] <wgrant> Which means access to more than just that branch | |
| [02:14] <wgrant> Which gets messy | |
| [02:14] <mwhudson> well | |
| [02:14] <mwhudson> imports would end up stacked on the project trunk in this case | |
| [02:14] <mwhudson> but they would get imported from scratch first | |
| [02:14] <mwhudson> which would not be so ideal | |
| [02:14] <wgrant> Well | |
| [02:15] <wgrant> They might end up using /+branch-id, which wouldn't stack | |
| [02:15] <mwhudson> oh true | |
| [02:15] <mwhudson> and indeed, that would be easiest | |
| [02:15] <wgrant> And safest | |
| [02:16] <mwhudson> so the fix is to make pushing to +branch-id stack? | |
| [02:16] <wgrant> Maybe | |
| [02:16] <wgrant> Or just ignore stacking | |
| [02:16] <mwhudson> i don't think attempting to solve stacking at the same time seems especially sensible | |
| [02:17] <wgrant> Indeed, perhaps not | |
| [02:17] <wgrant> But it should be kept in mind as a future consideration, perhaps | |
| [02:17] <mwhudson> once imports don't need the puller, converting mirrored to imported branches should be trivial | |
| [02:18] <mwhudson> and then one can rm -rf lib/lp/codehosting/puller | |
| [02:18] <mwhudson> which would get you lots of LOC credit :-) | |
| [02:18] <wgrant> Yep | |
| [02:18] <wgrant> That's why I haven't converted mirrors yet | |
| [02:18] <wgrant> Because of the escudero mess | |
| [02:18] <mwhudson> right | |
| [02:19] <mwhudson> someone should delete all the codeimportevent mess too :( | |
| [02:19] <mwhudson> that was mostly ddaa really but i feel bad for letting it happen | |
| [02:19] <wgrant> What's the mess there? | |
| [02:19] <wgrant> I admit I don't know those corners of the model well | |
| [02:19] <mwhudson> well, the whole concept is stupid | |
| [02:19] <mwhudson> not stupid | |
| [02:20] <mwhudson> but should have been YAGNIed before implementation | |
| [02:20] <wgrant> Oh | |
| [02:20] <wgrant> That's distinct from codeimportresult... I... seee | |
| [02:20] <mwhudson> yeah | |
| [02:20] <lifeless> thats hardly unique in LP | |
| [02:21] <wgrant> Ah | |
| [02:21] <wgrant> So CodeImportEvent is an audit log, basically | |
| [02:21] <mwhudson> yes | |
| [02:21] <mwhudson> that you mostly can't read | |
| [02:21] <lifeless> auditor being the now extant answer for that | |
| [02:21] <wgrant> Well | |
| [02:22] <wgrant> Except it isn't extant yet :) | |
| [02:22] <lifeless> ENODEPLOY ? | |
| [02:22] <mwhudson> and that means that standard methods are not used to mutate them, which means that e.g. field validators don't run | |
| [02:22] <wgrant> Yeah | |
| [02:22] <mwhudson> wgrant: https://code.launchpad.net/~mwhudson/launchpad has a few branches at the top if that's useful at all | |
| [02:23] <mwhudson> i can't really remember how far i got, i was looking at changing the worker invocation code when i got discouraged i think | |
| [02:24] <wgrant> Hmm, have you made a terrible mistake... | |
| [02:24] <wgrant> I guess we'll see | |
| [02:25] <wgrant> (pushing a series of branches which will each want to create the same new revisions, and they'll be scanned concurrently now...) | |
| [02:25] <mwhudson> oh | |
| [02:25] <mwhudson> heh | |
| [02:25] <mwhudson> they certainly don't seem to be being scanned | |
| [02:25] <wgrant> It takes a 80s at best to do a fresh scan of an LP branch nowadays | |
| [02:26] <wgrant> Often a few minutes | |
| [02:28] <wgrant> Yeah, they all OOPSed | |
| [02:29] <mwhudson> sigh | |
| [02:30] <wgrant> The branch scanner does not win any points for considering locks or using sensible transaction sizes :( | |
| [02:34] <StevenK> lifeless: We don't have the staging instance deployed yet, let alone think about production. | |
| [02:46] <StevenK> wgrant: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1376306/ but I'm not sure how to test it | |
| [02:47] <wgrant> Um no | |
| [02:47] <wgrant> Transaction management does not go in DB model classes :) | |
| [02:48] <StevenK> Wrap the generateIncrementalDiff in BMPJ run() ? | |
| [02:50] <StevenK> wgrant: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1376309/ | |
| [02:51] <StevenK> That I can test, if I can patch out generateIncrementalDiff() | |
| [02:51] <wgrant> Well | |
| [02:51] <wgrant> We in general need a strategy for handling conflicts in jobs | |
| [02:52] <wgrant> eg. what mwhudson just ran into | |
| [02:52] <wgrant> Ignoring all IntegrityErrors is probably not it :) | |
| [03:18] <StevenK> wgrant: Hmmm, it looks like cronscripts/rosetta-export-queue.py already uses the slave DB and based on the logs it isn't getting reaped. bug 504821 | |
| [03:18] <_mup_> Bug #504821: poimport (export)_uses a single long transaction, gets reaped <lp-translations> <oops> <Launchpad itself:Triaged> < https://launchpad.net/bugs/504821 > | |
| [03:20] <wgrant> It's still vile | |
| [03:20] <wgrant> But indeed, I haven't seen reaping in quite some time | |
| [03:21] <StevenK> wgrant: Downgrade or close? | |
| [03:21] <wgrant> Invalid until we have reason to believe otherwise | |
| [03:24] <wgrant> It's still something we need to adjust eventually, but it's not causing any trouble today | |
| [03:24] <wgrant> And it's not actively a problem until we ratchet our paranoia up another notch | |
| [03:26] <wgrant> StevenK: In what circumstances does one not have an id? | |
| [03:31] <StevenK> I'm guessing when we get a error page or something like that | |
| [03:31] <StevenK> There are a whole stack of oopses on neem | |
| [03:31] <wgrant> Right, they certainly happen | |
| [03:31] <wgrant> But we should work out why | |
| [03:32] <wgrant> Blindly bypassing an error condition without understanding it is not the way to fix criticals, sadly | |
| [03:32] <wgrant> (unless we have no other choice) | |
| [03:34] <StevenK> I just noticed the OOPSes while looking if there was a langpack export OOPS | |
| [03:35] <StevenK> Checking if they're all the same bugtracker | |
| [03:35] <wgrant> Sure | |
| [03:35] <wgrant> It's been happening for a while | |
| [03:35] <wgrant> And it's likely to be a simple fix | |
| [03:36] <wgrant> But we need to understand why | |
| [03:36] <lifeless> using the slave db is now pointless | |
| [03:36] <lifeless> as transaction bloat is propogated back to the master | |
| [03:37] <wgrant> lifeless: Pointless for bloat | |
| [03:37] <wgrant> Not pointless for load | |
| [03:37] <lifeless> not terribly interesting either ;> | |
| [03:37] <wgrant> (not that load is an issue on any system today) | |
| [03:37] <wgrant> right | |
| [04:00] <StevenK> Oh, hah | |
| [04:00] <StevenK> mercurial has replaced their roundup instance with bugzilla and are redirecting | |
| [04:00] <wgrant> Ah | |
| [04:05] <StevenK> wgrant: Right, there's mercurial fixed, two link farm bugtrackers deleted and I yet to figure out what setuptools is doing | |
| [04:06] <wgrant> :) | |
| [08:30] <adeuring> good morning | |
| [09:15] <czajkowski> aloha | |
| [10:22] <czajkowski> cjwatson: ello how do you want this triaged, https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/1081860 | |
| [10:22] <_mup_> Bug #1081860: uploads to oneiric/partner are redirected to oneiric-proposed/partner <Launchpad itself:New> < https://launchpad.net/bugs/1081860 > | |
| [10:29] <cjwatson> czajkowski: I stole it for ubuntu-archive-tools | |
| [10:29] <cjwatson> So you won't have to care :) | |
| [10:29] <czajkowski> oki dokie :) | |
| [10:29] <czajkowski> thanks colin | |
| === matsubara is now known as matsubara-lunch | |
| === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan | |
| === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away | |
| === matsubara-lunch is now known as matsubara | |
| [17:31] <czajkowski> cjwatson: me again :) can you moderate a mail if you get a chance later on to devel | |
| [17:32] <czajkowski> really find it hard to type devel without going devil :/ | |
| [17:33] <cjwatson> czajkowski: done | |
| [17:34] <czajkowski> cjwatson: thank you | |
| === cyclicflux is now known as Guest70182 | |
| [18:18] <jml> is there a secret way of only retrieving certain keys when GETting Launchpad API resources? | |
| [18:18] <jml> some code_review_comments are really, really big. | |
| [18:20] <jml> further, the size of the download is 2x the size of the comment, because as_quoted_email is included in the dict | |
| [18:21] <jml> also, they both get stored in memory as unicode objects, which take up 4x as many bytes as the string has characters | |
| [18:21] <jml> bringing us up to 8x | |
| [18:22] <jml> then, if you are getting it as part of a collection, the naive way of using it (looping through), will give you a copy of the data in the collection _and_ a copy in the entry object | |
| [18:22] <jml> taking us up to 16x | |
| [18:23] <jml> for this use case, I don't care about the comment body at all. All I want is the dates. | |
| [18:35] <czajkowski> jml: most of the devs are off today as USA based | |
| [18:42] <jml> czajkowski: so I should try to avoid having hard problems today and tomorrow? | |
| [19:30] <czajkowski> jml: most are back tomorrow tbh, or leave a message for wgrant he'll be back online shortlyish | |
| [19:31] <czajkowski> jml: adeuring will be back jtv bigjools, or gmb | |
| [22:26] <wgrant> jml: Well, you can retrieve individual attributes directly, but you can't retrieve a subset of elements that isn't either the whole lot or a single one. | |
| [22:26] <wgrant> lazr.restful unfortunately provides no more advanced facility | |
| [22:26] <wgrant> jml: You should upgrade to Python 3.3 :) | |
| [22:28] <abentley> jml: Are these really, really big code_review_comments full of test results? | |
| [23:15] <james_w`> abentley, yes | |