User1: #startmeeting
User2: Meeting started at 09:00. The chair is barry.
User2: Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
User1: hello everyone and welcome to this week's ameu reviewers meeting.  who's here today?
User3: me
User4: me
User5: me
User6: me
User7: me
User8: me
User1: adeuring, bac ping
User9: me
User10: me
User1: bigjools, BjornT ping
User1: danilo_: ping
User11: me, sorry for the delay
User12: me
User1: User17 ping
User1: rockstar, salgado, sinzui ping
User13: me
User1: [TOPIC] agenda
User2: New Topic:  agenda
User1: * Roll call
User1: * Action items
User1: * Mentoring update
User1: * Peanut gallery (anything not on the agenda)
User14: mo
User14: me
User1: pretty light day today (planned at least)
User1: [TOPIC] action items
User2: New Topic:  action items
User15: me
User1: * danilo to look into storm/sqlobject result set compatibility
User1: is danilo_ here today?  flacoste do you have any status on this?
User16: me
User10: danilo?
User10: that was allenap
User10: backporting the patch he landed on storm trunk
User7: I forgot :(
User1: User10 oops!
User17: me
User7: Please assign to me and I'll try and do it this time :)
User1: User7 done, thanks
User1: * gary_poster will check to see if there's a bug open for adding a hook to `bzr send`, and submit one if there isn't
User6: no sorry
User6: will put back on my list
User1: User6 cool, thanks
User1: * flacoste to work on API reviewer cheat sheet
User15: gary_poster, barry, abentley has a branch that he's been working on the forever.
User6: User15 ok cool, I'll ask him about it
User10: User1 no progress since last week
User1: np
User10: User1 keep it up, i like this weekly "i suck" reminder :-)
User1: :-D
User6: :-)
User10: good for keeping the ego in leash
User4: User6 I've done the support for specifying a body when sending, but not adding the hook.
User6: User4 cool.  I'm guessing it's not on your immediate plate to finish it up?
User4: User6 Right.
User6: understood
User6: thanks
User1: [TOPIC] mentoring update
User2: New Topic:  mentoring update
User4: User1 Did you get anywhere with adding body support to claws?
User6: User4 do you happen to know if there's a bug for this, and what it might be, if so?
User4: User6 I'm not aware of a bug for this.
User1: User4 i didn't :(
User6: User4 ok cool.
User6: User1 one to-do item scratched off ;-) ...but maybe needs to be replaced with another.
User1: User6 i'll cross it off and you can let me know if you want another
User6: User1 cool thanks
User1: am i right that only stub is still being mentored?
User1: i should ping a few folks to see if they're ready to be mentats
User1: i don't think there's many folks left who aren't revewiers
User1: anyway...
User1: [TOPIC] peanut gallery
User2: New Topic:  peanut gallery
User1: do you guys have anything not on the agenda?
User4: I am wondering if we have a policy on redundant assertions?
User4: e.g. if foo; else: assert not foo
User3: User4 i thought the policy is that we always do this
User3: but maybe it's not documented anywhere?
User1: User3 we always have an else clause if there's an elif
User1: but if there's no elif we don't need an else+assert
User3: oh, right
User4: Why would we *always* do that?
User15: abentley's example seems to be different than what barry showed intellectronica
User1: User4 doesn't make sense to me
User15: Yea, the else+assert seems a little silly, as though assert would catch something the if would not.
User16: User4 do you have an example in our code?
User4: User16 It was something I reviewed on Monday.
User3: yes, sorry, i got confused. if there's only one if there's probably no need to do this, unless it's imprtant that the code fails at this point
User4: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~salgado/launchpad/bug-358498/+merge/5496
User1: User4 the one on line 16 can just as well be raise AssertionError(...)
User13: in this specific case I wanted the assertion because the 'elif' block should be removed soon, at which point the assertion will become non-redundant
User1: and that does fall within our guidelines
User4: User1 It's unreacable code.
User1: User4 proven by the assertion? <wink>
User4: User1 It can equally well be raise IAmSuperman
User1: User4 the one on line 13 seems okay, but should have a message
User4: User1 It just seems like the wrong use of asserts-- proving that Python isn't buggy.
User16: User4 ok. i would replace that assert with a raise AssertionError
User1: User13 you're saying the whole 8-14 block will be removed eventually?
User1: User4 sorry, i was talk about the one in the else clause (first)
User1: i.e. line 16 is fine
User1: line 13, yeah, i suppose. doesn't bother me too much either way
User4: User1 I thought asserts were for proving your own state wasn't buggy.
User1: User4 yes, or that the state you're assuming to be the case actually is the case
User4: Anyhow, I'll continue to say "I think this is redundant, but keep it if you like."
User1: User4 +1, for the line 13 assert
User1: oh, yeah, line 16 isn't a change
User1: but still.  or whatever.
User4: User1 line 13 can't be reached because of line 6.
User1: User4 thanks
User1: User4 yep
 * barry agrees with abentley when he says:  Anyhow, I'll continue to say "I think this is redundant, but keep it if you like."
User16: oh, we're talking about line 13. yes, that one should be removed
User11: well, yes, but salgado said that he will soon reorganize the code, so leaving this as a"reminder" is OK, IMHO
User1: agreed.  maybe the assertion message (which salgado will add <wink>) should state something to that effect?
User13: maybe. :)
User1: User4 thanks for bringing this up
User1: anything more on this?
User4: User1 np
User1: does anybody else have anything not on the agenda?
User1: 5
User1: 4
User15: Happy Tax Day!
User1: User15 "happy"?!
User1: 3
User1: 2
User1: 1
User1: #endmeeting
User2: Meeting finished at 09:26.
User6: bye
User1: thanks everyone!
User5: thanks barry
User9: thanks barry
User1: see ya back at the ranch
User18: here
User19: hi
User1: #startmeeting
User2: Meeting started at 17:32. The chair is barry.
User2: Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
User1: hi jml, thumper.  are you here?
User18: here
User19: User1 like you wouldn't believe.
User1: not that i have a big agenda
User1: [TOPIC] agenda
User2: New Topic:  agenda
User1: * Roll call
User1: * Action items
User1: * Mentoring update
User1: * Peanut gallery (anything not on the agenda)
User1: [TOPIC] action items
User2: New Topic:  action items
User1: User18 just one for you, an old one i think
User1: * thumper to open bug on `webservice` pagetests globs problem
User18: hmm
User18: I don't recall doing it
User1: do you still want to? :)
User18: I should do it
User1: i can keep it on the agenda
User1: [TOPIC]  * Peanut gallery (anything not on the agenda)
User2: New Topic:   * Peanut gallery (anything not on the agenda)
User1: you guys have anything?
User18: bug 362032
User20: Launchpad bug 362032 in launchpad "webservice glob is an admin user" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/362032
User18: I don't really have anything
User1: User18 thanks
User1: jml?
User1: User19 i guess not
User1: i have one issue that came up today in a review:
User1: * don't return unwrapped objects from view methods, barry and gary ("the fightin' arries!")
User19: back
User19: computer crapped out
User1: i agree with the principle.  gary wants to go further and prevent view modules from importing removeSecurityProxy
User1: User19 no worries
User18: User1 what do you mean?
User19: what did I miss?
User1: User19 not much.  do you have any agenda items?
User18: I disagree with not allowing removeSecurityProxy at all
User18: but it's uses should be well defined
User19: just one re mentoring.
User1: User18 can you state why?
User1: User19 we'll come back to that
User18: not off the top of my head
User18: I'd have to look at the situations where we use it
User18: and why we did it that way
User1: User18 think about it, you don't have to answer now
User19: User1 so, I'm not against adding a rule wrt removeSecurityProxy but...
User19: it's not going to help that much :)
User1: why not?
User19: two reasons
User19: for a start, it's actually really easy to return non-wrapped objects, particularly if they aren't db objects
User19: even without rSP
User19: the issue goes more deeply into the model code
User19: e.g. up until recently, all SourcePackage objects had no security lauren34@example.com.
User19: second, the purpose of the importfascist is unclear
User19: and so a prohibition there will last exactly as long as it takes for people to need removeSecurityProxy in view code and to forget exactly why it is that we don't allow it.
User1: btw, fwiw, i think rSP in view code is fine under the right circumstances
User19: so, what are the reasons for not returning unwrapped objects from views?
User18: I'm actually happy for "not returning unwrapped objects from views"
User18: keep the unwrapped objects in a defined scope
User1: User19 it's a vague (to me) feeling that we could leak private data
User18: however I'm against "don't allow the unwrapping of objects in views"
User19: User1 I think the real problem there is that it's difficult to audit any given page.
User1: User19 agreed.  thumper agreed
User19: User1 in some ways, rSP makes it easier to audit :)
User1: i'm definitely against unwrapping in model code.  so where else would you do it?  i don't like having to add an artificial layer in there
User1: User19 true
User19: so, I guess I'd say "whatever". We've already got quite a few well-intentioned for-your-own
User19: -good rules. One more won't break _this_ camel.
User1: User19 cool, this is an interesting discussion anyway.  we can move on and we'll bring it up at the next ameu
User1: [TOPIC] mentoring update
User2: New Topic:  mentoring update
User19: o hai
User19: stub's doing a great job, and I see no reason not to promote him.
User1: beauty.  i'll make it official, thanks
User19: np
User1: i think he's the last mentat atm
User1: well, that's all i've got.  anything else from you two?
User18: nope
User19: I'm cool.
User1: #endmeeting
User2: Meeting finished at 17:53.
User1: thanks guys
User19: User1 thank you
launchpad-meeting
Ubuntu IRC