File size: 15,472 Bytes
4aa5fce |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 |
[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 |