18:00:20 <jono> #startmeeting
18:00:20 <meetingology> Meeting started Thu Jun 28 18:00:20 2012 UTC.  The chair is jono. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
18:00:20 <meetingology> 
18:00:20 <meetingology> Available commands: #accept #accepted #action #agree #agreed #chair #commands #endmeeting #endvote #halp #help #idea #info #link #lurk #meetingname #meetingtopic #nick #progress #rejected #replay #restrictlogs #save #startmeeting #subtopic #topic #unchair #undo #unlurk #vote #voters #votesrequired
18:00:36 <jono> hey folks, and welcome to the very first Ubuntu Accomplishments meeting :-)
18:00:43 <jono> who is here for the meeting?
18:00:55 <notgary> I am o/
18:01:09 * cielak is here
18:01:12 <highvoltage> "You've unlocked an accomplishment! Attending your first Ubuntu Accomplishments meeting!"
18:01:18 <jono> highvoltage, LOL!
18:01:32 <jono> well thanks folks for joining us
18:01:47 <jono> there is not really a fixed agenda here, but I have a few topics I want to cover:
18:01:49 <philipballew> 0/
18:02:05 <jono> * getting more accomplishments written
18:02:12 <jono> * getting more translation involvement
18:02:14 <jono> * testing
18:02:20 <jono> does anyone else have any topics?
18:03:09 <jono> ok then :-)
18:03:30 <jono> maybe we can cover translations first
18:03:52 <jono> so we have four projects -daemon -viewer -community-accomplishments and -desktop-accomplishments
18:03:57 <jono> and then also the web gallery
18:04:08 <cielak> I remember it was suggested that we bound some official translation groups to our project
18:04:12 <jono> right now our translation coverage in the desktop app and daemon is pretty good
18:04:20 <jono> but the accomplishments themselves is limited
18:04:23 <jono> cielak, indeed
18:04:36 <cielak> especially desktop ones, I wonder if they are available in more than 2 langs
18:04:37 <hallino1> Me :)
18:04:42 <jono> any thoughts on how we get more translators involved?
18:04:57 <jono> it would be great if we had a translations leader who can help grow this community
18:05:01 <jono> cielak, yeah
18:05:42 <jono> is anyone interested in helping out with this?
18:05:55 <cielak> I wonder whether we can't simply ask one of these translator organisations that translate everything in LP
18:06:17 <cielak> like the Launchpad Translators
18:06:21 <jono> cielak, like the Ubuntu translations groups?
18:06:27 <jono> so maybe the next step is reaching out there
18:06:37 <jono> I know some translators express concern about open permissions too
18:06:42 <jono> so we might need to resolve that
18:07:07 <cielak> we've had recently a case of translation mistake of griefing that coused a critical bug in viewer
18:07:37 <jono> right
18:07:54 <jono> ok, I will reach out to the translations groups to see if they can help us
18:08:05 <jono> if anyone is passionate about this, do let us know
18:08:15 <jono> we could definitely use some help here :-)
18:08:18 * gepatino is here
18:08:29 <jono> hey gepatino, just the person
18:08:56 <jono> gepatino, do you think it would be viable to provide a link in the web viewer so people can be linked to where they can translate opportunities?
18:09:04 <jono> this might be a good way of getting more folks involved
18:09:05 <notgary> How about writing some translation accomplishments -"You have make your first translation", "You have made 10 translations", "You have made 20 translations", etc. I have actually been thinking it would be cool to track Launchpad activity for acheivements, such as "You have merge X patches into Ubuntu". Perhaps this could be done for translations
18:09:25 <jono> notgary, we would love to have that, but translations doesn't have an API in LP afaik
18:09:35 <cielak> notgary: the problem with translations is that Launchpad API does not expose access to them
18:10:00 <gepatino> jono, adding a link shouldn't be an issue
18:10:17 <gepatino> should we check some rules? redirect so some specific language, etc?
18:10:24 <jono> gepatino, cool - we would need to figure out how to generate a link to the correct strings, but we can look into that
18:10:32 <cielak> notgary: and the problem with number-based accomplishments is that they often encourage pointless traffic
18:10:35 <jono> gepatino, I am not sure of the details
18:11:04 <jono> ok, so lets move on
18:11:10 <jono> next I wanted to discuss testing
18:11:17 <jono> cielak and I have been discussing this recently
18:11:30 <gepatino> i was catching up... I meant it would be a problem to add link, thinking in linking to launchpad translations
18:11:44 <jono> our codebase is growing, and so are our users, and thus the potential for bugs could increase
18:11:44 <gepatino> then I've read about the translation groups not being open...
18:11:46 <jono> gepatino, cool
18:12:18 <jono> gepatino, well, open in terms of whether contributions are reviewed
18:12:37 <jono> I think we should get advice from our translation community about how the translations are best governed
18:12:49 * cielak agrees
18:12:49 <gepatino> ok
18:12:56 <jono> so in terms of testing
18:13:10 <jono> I would like to build unit test suites for all of our projects
18:13:16 <jono> I know the web team are already working on this
18:13:33 <jono> and I am planning on putting in place unit tests for the daemon
18:13:45 <jono> I suspect the viewer is important but less critical than the daemon
18:13:56 <jono> if the daemon gets it wrong, all viewers are screwed :-)
18:14:02 <jono> hey janosTheHun
18:14:13 <janosTheHun> hey jono !
18:14:13 <cielak> viewer is just a bunch of GTK+ hacks, the real code is in the daemon ;)
18:14:22 <jono> cielak, indeed :-)
18:14:29 <jono> the other part of the testing which I wanted to discuss was how we test the server
18:14:35 <jono> again, cielak and I discussed this a little earlier
18:14:47 * janosTheHun here now, but won't be long
18:15:12 <jono> so while we have seen good traffic on the validation server, which suggests things are generally working well, there are sometimes issues, and these could be either U1 syncing delays or bugs in the server
18:15:13 <cielak> janosTheHun: semi-final? :)
18:15:20 <janosTheHun> cielak: yup :)
18:15:53 <cielak> or generaly any case causing trouble with the validation process
18:15:59 <cielak> there can be many more factors
18:16:08 <jono> in terms of the U1 lag, I have a solution which I think could work - I will set up a U1 user who will generate some files and put the timestamp inside the file - when the file is synced we can compare the timestamps of the server to the file and get an idea of lag
18:16:29 <jono> I think having visibility on U1 lag will help us in tracking down some issues
18:16:48 <cielak> such file would be sent like each 10 minutes, or daily?
18:16:48 <jono> I would also like the server testing to dynamically create and register shares and check on the success of that too
18:16:57 <jono> cielak, I am thinking every 10 mins or so
18:17:03 <jono> and then plot this into a a graph
18:17:09 <jono> so we can compare when a bug occurs to the lag time
18:17:21 <cielak> right
18:17:22 <jono> bug X happened on 5th June, and oh look...U1 was lagging :-)
18:17:57 <jono> in terms of ensuring the server is actually validating trophies correctly, I think the first step is probably unit tests
18:18:19 <cielak> well, most our problems with validation server is not just lag, but no signature at all, yet that's a good idea nevertheless
18:18:24 <jono> one challenge we have now is that if a user types in the wrong identification it will constantly fail
18:18:34 <jono> cielak, right
18:18:45 <jono> so a trophy not getting signed means either:
18:19:10 <jono> (1) the user is screwing around with .trophy files
18:19:20 <jono> (2) there is a bug in the code that uploads a trophy
18:19:37 <cielak> 1) is unlike, if someone intentionally messes things up, they won't report a bug
18:19:54 <jono> (3) the user entered extra-information that generated the .trophy and then changed it after it was synced, s when the server validates it the extra-info doesnt work
18:20:14 <jono> yeah I think few people, if any are faking trophies
18:20:45 <gepatino> (4) there is a bug in the code that validates the trophy
18:20:45 <cielak> 3) is not valid, daemon will regenerate the trophy with new extrainfo, if it wasn't yet signed
18:21:01 <jono> gepatino, oops, yes
18:21:04 <philipballew> faking does not give you that good feeling that earning it does.
18:21:45 <jono> cielak, right, but imagine this: the user adds e-a, it gets approved and generates a .trophy, that gets uploaded, they then change their e-i and U1 doesnt sync it yet
18:21:51 <gepatino> so, the real programming bugs seems to be (2) and (4), am I right?
18:21:53 <jono> philipballew, indeed
18:22:03 <jono> gepatino, yup
18:22:34 <cielak> jono: this happens just once, the next time the .trophy is sent it will be correct, and the server will sign it then
18:22:37 <cielak> or will it not?
18:22:59 <jono> cielak, agreed, I just mean that it is not inconceivable that there could be a mismatch
18:23:01 <cielak> if I modify my .trophy and send a new version, will the server re-sign it?
18:23:06 <jono> I do think we have some bugs in there somewhere
18:23:25 <jono> cielak, if you already have the .asc, the server wont resign
18:23:34 <jono> if you don't have the .asc it will try to sign
18:23:43 <cielak> each time I upload a new version?
18:23:50 <cielak> or just then the file is created?
18:24:10 <jono> cielak, each time the file is updated
18:24:18 <cielak> okay, that's correct then
18:24:22 <jono> if you modify a file in U1 that is in a subscribed folder, it gets synced
18:24:35 <cielak> so 3) is not really a problematic case
18:25:53 <jono> cielak, right, I think the mismatch scenario is pretty rare anyway
18:26:00 <cielak> indeed
18:26:05 <jono> it will result in a logged failure on the server, but then just resolve itself
18:26:11 <cielak> we better seek for bugs in the code :)
18:26:14 <jono> what we need to identify is what is the source of the failures
18:26:18 <jono> cielak, totally agree
18:26:41 <jono> cielak, we just need to do more testing and find failures
18:26:49 <janosTheHun> i recommend writing unit tests around this issue, and try to cover all the corner cases you can think of
18:26:54 <jono> right now I think there is a lot we can do to get better visibility on failures
18:26:59 <jono> janosTheHun, agreed
18:27:24 <jono> janosTheHun, I was saying before you joined that I would like us to have unit tests for all of our projects
18:27:33 <jono> and before we land code we can run the test suites
18:28:40 <janosTheHun> jono: yup, good idea
18:28:51 <cielak> we might also think to include some easy access to debug data
18:28:59 <cielak> the daemon log file is working great
18:29:02 <jono> cielak, what kind of debug data
18:29:08 <cielak> for bug reports it's really useful
18:29:21 <cielak> but there are other things we ask all users that report a bug
18:29:44 <jono> cielak, I agree we might want to build some better debug tools into our software
18:30:00 <cielak> like the share data, whether it got accepted, what files are in trophies directory
18:30:03 <jono> one thing that could be useful for example is an easy way to see if a share is active
18:30:07 <jono> yeah
18:30:30 <jono> cielak, maybe we could add this to battery?
18:30:36 <jono> add a switch to summarize system info
18:30:47 <jono> accomplishments-battery -i for example
18:30:56 <cielak> you have recently implemented support for getting our share data from the u1syncdaemon, what if we simply printed the result to the daemon log?
18:30:57 <jono> and it displays the share status and other reporting
18:31:22 <cielak> I'd integrate it with either daemon or viewer, so that when one reports a bug, we do not need to ask him to install the battery
18:31:27 <jono> cielak, we could do that
18:31:33 <jono> makes sense
18:31:39 <jono> I am happy to take a look into that
18:31:47 <jono> should be a simple addition :-)
18:31:52 <cielak> actually, there is some bug in determining share ID, found it recently
18:32:00 <jono> cielak, oh?
18:32:24 <cielak> will need to take a closer look, but it makes me unable to publish my trophies :) (the shareid in URL does not match my actual shareid)
18:32:38 <jono> cielak, I think I know this bug
18:32:45 <jono> this might be because you have two active shares
18:32:50 <cielak> nope, just one
18:32:54 <jono> really?
18:32:55 <jono> odd
18:33:04 <cielak> yeah, will report it & investigate
18:33:07 <jono> cool
18:33:09 <jono> speaking of which....
18:33:14 <jono> I have another suggestion
18:33:21 <jono> I would like to suggest we have two log files
18:33:24 <jono> daemon.log
18:33:29 <jono> and scriptrunner.log
18:33:38 <jono> the daemon is getting spammed with all the checks for accomplishments
18:33:40 <cielak> aaah, that's wise
18:33:42 <jono> which makes it difficult to read
18:33:45 <janosTheHun> is there a wiki page about running the unit tests in the daemon project?
18:33:55 <jono> janosTheHun, not yet, they don't exist
18:34:09 <jono> janosTheHun, we have an original set of tests that hasnt been touched since January
18:34:14 <jono> I need to go in and update them
18:34:26 <jono> when I get a few working we can work together to build out full coverage
18:34:46 <jono> cielak, would you be happy to split the daemon log into the two files?
18:35:15 <jono> we may even want to have a log file standard info such as the share, share id, if it is active, trophydir etc
18:35:21 <jono> so these daemon logs:
18:35:29 <jono> * daemon.log - general run time daemon info
18:35:43 <jono> * scriptrunner.log - log of when accomplishments are checked
18:36:10 <jono> * environment.log - a list of settings in the environment (e.g. share id, name, trophy dir, collections installed etc)
18:36:44 <cielak> well, daemon.log will contain very little information, we might merge environment.log into it
18:37:09 <jono> cielak, right, I was just thinking you would need to hunt it our in daemon.log
18:37:16 <jono> whereas environment.log can just summarize
18:37:26 <jono> I am happy with whatever you prefer though
18:37:47 <cielak> maybe I'll try both, and compare which one makes more sense
18:38:07 <cielak> we can have several instances of some 'logging' object, that would write to a single file
18:38:09 <jono> cielak, awesome :-)
18:38:14 <jono> indeed
18:38:21 <jono> this will give us good visibility when people have issues
18:38:31 <jono> cielak, we may want to consider this as a push into 2.1
18:38:40 <jono> depending on how invasive it is
18:38:51 <cielak> by the way: we have not created separate series for 0.2
18:39:16 <cielak> thus we cannot separate 0.3 additions from 0.2.1 ones
18:39:33 <jono> cielak, oops
18:39:36 <jono> I will do that
18:40:07 <jono> I will create the series, but we should probably only push critical fixes to 0.2.x
18:40:12 <jono> so lets maybe do this in 0.3
18:40:18 <jono> I will create the series today anyway
18:40:25 <cielak> yeah, will be more time to test all that
18:40:34 <janosTheHun> ok i guys i have to go, will try to do something for the daemon and then ping you
18:40:41 <jono> cool
18:40:48 <jono> laters janosTheHun! :-)
18:40:49 <jono> thanks!
18:40:51 <cielak> thanks janosTheHun, see you!
18:41:20 <jono> so anything more to discuss on testing?
18:42:17 * cielak just pushed a tiny fix that significantly cleans up demon's log ;-)
18:42:28 <jono> cielak, wow, you are fast, buddy :-)
18:42:48 <jono> ok, so the final topic I wanted to discuss was growing our community of accomplishments writers
18:42:53 <jono> I am a little behind on this
18:43:06 <jono> I am planning on putting together documentation and a video for how to get people involved
18:43:18 <cielak> it may be worth reminding that we have lots of forum accomplishments waiting
18:43:21 <jono> but so far I have been focused on a few other things such as the branches
18:43:31 <jono> cielak, oh we should look into that
18:43:43 <cielak> and s-fox will be surely interested in developing them, but Canonical did not reply for some longer time
18:44:02 <jono> yeah Canonical IS has not responded yet since his last email
18:44:07 <jono> I will see if I can ping them to respond
18:44:33 <jono> I also need to update the docs as battery now checks for missing fields in .accomplishment files
18:44:37 <cielak> might be worth it, I can't imagine 0.3 release without forum accoms!
18:44:43 <jono> indeed :-)
18:44:55 <cielak> there is one more problem with the docs
18:44:59 <jono> oh?
18:45:08 <cielak> someone had problems with following the guide recently
18:45:18 <cielak> the problem is with the order of chapters
18:45:26 <cielak> I guess battery information is too soon
18:45:59 <cielak> it assumes one has already installed the collection, that is working on a bazaar branch etc
18:46:16 <jono> ahhh
18:46:22 <cielak> so basically it requires knowledge from upcoming chapters
18:46:34 <jono> we should ask people to file bugs in ubuntu-accomplishments for docs related issues
18:46:42 <jono> cielak, could you ask that person to file a bug?
18:46:50 * cielak wanted to re-read the whole guide to determine causes, but hadn't yet time
18:46:58 <jono> good idea
18:47:00 <cielak> jono: sure, will try to
18:47:09 <jono> and as we get more contributors involved it will help us spot other issues
18:47:13 <jono> ok cool
18:47:22 <jono> well I have covered everything I wanted to discuss today
18:47:26 <jono> anything else?
18:47:42 <cielak> wasn't it philipballew?
18:48:12 <cielak> philipballew: are you still with us? ;-)
18:48:15 <philipballew> yes!
18:48:55 <cielak> awesome! would you mind reporting a bug in ubuntu-accomplishments concerning the troubles you had with following the guide on creating accomplishments?
18:49:17 <philipballew> Yes. I will.
18:49:23 <cielak> great thanks!
18:49:51 <jono> ok, I guess we can wrap
18:49:53 <cielak> maybe someone lurking has any questions concerning accomplishments?
18:49:57 <jono> thanks folks for joining our first meeting!
18:50:02 <jono> yeah, any questions?
18:50:14 <jono> and remember that we live in #ubuntu-accomplishments
18:50:16 <gepatino> is there any roadmap for web gallery to 0.3?
18:50:29 <gepatino> or so far only the specs in the wiki?
18:50:51 <philipballew> I am considering a simple video tutorial on making some for people who are not good at reading and understanding as they would be in they could see.
18:51:10 <jono> gepatino, just the wiki right now
18:51:14 <jono> but part of it is the Mobile spec
18:51:17 <jono> did you see that gepatino?
18:51:24 <jono> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Accomplishments/Specs/Mobile
18:51:34 <jono> this is basically a stylesheet for the web gallery
18:51:50 <jono> philipballew, that would be great
18:52:03 <jono> my main advice is ensure that you have written a few accomplishments first before you do a tutorial
18:52:19 <jono> someone else did a tutorial and they had not written an accomplishment and it wasnt so good
18:52:21 <gepatino> i've read that, jono, thanks
18:52:26 <jono> gepatino, cool
18:53:08 <cielak> and of course such new accomplishments are very welcome! :)
18:53:13 <gepatino> and finally, is there any release date for the web gallery? we are progressing but there are a lot of things to fix, like page layouts, check url schemas, etc
18:53:55 <jono> gepatino, release date for 0.3 is Sep 5th
18:54:04 <jono> so if we could shoot for then, that would be grea
18:54:08 * cielak has to remember it, hehe
18:54:20 <jono> it would be cool to have it in place earlier so we can get some further testing
18:54:49 <gepatino> sure, it would be nice to have one or two weeks before
18:54:50 <cielak> hopefully we'll get trophies.ubuntu.com :)
18:55:18 <jono> indeed :-)
18:55:22 <jono> alright, lets wrap
18:55:24 <jono> thanks, folks!
18:55:26 <jono> #endmeeting