launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Julian Edwards <julian.edwards@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday 20 January 2010 18:58:19 Bjorn Tillenius wrote:
> > {{{
> >   Set up canonical.testing.layers.BaseWindmillLayer in 0.000 seconds.
> > X11 connection rejected because of wrong authentication.
> >   Set up lp.bugs.windmill.testing.BugsWindmillLayerError: cannot open
> > display: localhost:10.0
> 
> I would say that this is a setup issue on your box. But then you said
> that a new realease fixed it. Can you point to the changelog?

https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg-server/2:1.6.4-2ubuntu4.1

Well - I should say that that change fixed the fact that xvfb didn't start 
properly at all.  I'm waiting on a test run on my remote box to finish to see 
if it fixed this issue as well.

> > I second a another email that said js tests are not ready to block
> > landings yet.
> 
> Do you think it's acceptable that some parts of the UI might be totally
> un-usable?

If the JS doesn't work then it should fall back to the plain pages, so I 
wouldn't call that unusable.  It may not fall back automatically of course, 
but at least there *are* fallbacks.

> How do you propose we find all these issues that needs to be
> fixed, before the tests "are aready"? The only issues so far is this
> issue, which you are the only one to see, and the issue that Paul and
> Tim reported. I'm looking at the latter now (which I hadn't seen before,
> even though I ran the Windmill tests quite a lot), and I have no way of
> reproducing your issue. How about we all ship and and make the tests
> "ready", if they aren't already?

My problem is that most of Soyuz has nothing to do with UI.  It's extremely 
frustrating to be unable to land a change to the buildd manager, for example, 
because some JS is failing.  I understand this is not exactly part of the 
"stop the line" ethos, but while we have these distinct parts that are not in 
the same line, it's bad for my blood pressure.

I thought that having a separate JS buildbot was far better.  The only thing 
wrong was that we didn't have a process in place for someone to fix the test 
failures when they happened.

Perhaps I should consider splitting some of the non-UI Soyuz stuff into a 
separate code base?