qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aidan Skinner" <ai...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Continued Jira dunging out
Date Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:51:41 GMT
We managed to close out 40+ issues from 260-odd that were on the list
to review, with a further 10 or so which I wasn't sure about in the
python client.

Full log follows, but I did note that we have a quite a few patches
outstanding on the management console still, and a few for the C++
client and broker which I didn't touch due to extreme ignorance.

- Aidan

 [3:02 pm] aidan.x.skinner  alrighty, it's time for Jira fest '08 #2!

 [3:02 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] ROCK!

 [3:02 pm] aidan.x.skinner  rhs, rajith: you about?

 [3:02 pm] partychat0  ["rhs"] I'm about, but on the phone at the moment.

 [3:03 pm] partychat0  ["rob"] ditto

 [3:03 pm] partychat0  ["rhs"] But I can answer questions that don't
involve applying too much of my brain.

 [3:03 pm] partychat0  ["rhs"] Such as "you about?" for example.

 [3:03 pm] partychat0  ["rob"] I will also answer questions that don't
involve applying too much of rhs' brain

 [3:03 pm] aidan.x.skinner  that's cool, I'm mostly just looking for a
yes/no to "is it done"

 [3:03 pm] partychat0  ["rob"] Use "no" as the answer to all such questions

 [3:03 pm] aidan.x.skinner  working from page 2 of this list

 [3:04 pm] aidan.x.skinner  QPID-677, Mr Ritchie...

 [3:05 pm] partychat0  [rajith77@gmail.com] I am around if needed

 [3:05 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] I beleive this has been fixed.

 [3:05 pm] aidan.x.skinner  please close it then

 [3:05 pm] aidan.x.skinner  anyboyd know about QPID-681, Queue Message
raw ptr -> manage ptr?

 [3:05 pm] aidan.x.skinner  carl?

 [3:05 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] Rob can you rememeber the little
change we made to the byte buffer in the broker about cloning?

 [3:06 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] and field table use?

 [3:06 pm] partychat0  ["rob"] I can remember

 [3:06 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] did we fix it?

 [3:06 pm] partychat0  ["rob"] y

 [3:07 pm] aidan.x.skinner  rhs: QPID-691 testlib.py not honoring --borker?

 [3:08 pm] partychat0  ["rhs"] --borker is not a valid option

 [3:08 pm] partychat0  ["rob"]

 [3:08 pm] partychat0  ["rob"] --bork ?

 [3:08 pm] aidan.x.skinner

 [3:08 pm] aidan.x.skinner  is   --broker?

 [3:08 pm] partychat0  ["rhs"] I have no idea.

 [3:09 pm] partychat0  ["rhs"] You can assign it to me and I'll check it out.

 [3:09 pm] aidan.x.skinner  ok

 [3:10 pm] aidan.x.skinner  martin: qpid-700, did you check it? is it
a problem with the changes to statemanager?

 [3:11 pm] aidan.x.skinner  same deal with qpid-701

 [3:11 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] haven't chekd FailoverExceptions...
StateManager will throw what ever it is given

 [3:11 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] 701 can be closed

 [3:11 pm] partychat0  ["rob"] 704 canbe assigned to me

 [3:12 pm] aidan.x.skinner  martin: please close then

 [3:12 pm] aidan.x.skinner  rob: done

 [3:12 pm] aidan.x.skinner  martin: then please check 707

 [3:12 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] Shall do shortly I hope.. JIRA seems
to have logged me out and won't le me in.. .waitiing for new password
to arrive

 [3:12 pm] aidan.x.skinner  oh, ok. i'll do it then

 [3:13 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] 707 can be closed.. or even replaced
with a Make Dups OK != AutoAck

 [3:13 pm] aidan.x.skinner  closed it

 [3:15 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] 721 seems invalid

 [3:15 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] TopicSessionTest is not commented
out anywhere anymore

 [3:16 pm] aidan.x.skinner  yeah, i reassigned it to me

 [3:16 pm] aidan.x.skinner  just wanted to check that i was actually being run

 [3:16 pm] aidan.x.skinner  anybody know about 735?

 [3:16 pm] aidan.x.skinner  sending messages to an undeclared queue
fails silently

 [3:17 pm] aidan.x.skinner  and similarly 736, which is kind of the
same thing when a queue has been deleted from the broker

 [3:17 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] only in 0-10 as there is no Return

 [3:17 pm] aidan.x.skinner  shouldn't we be throuwing an exception then?

 [3:18 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] I think the 0-8 code path will

 [3:18 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] it does a check to see if the route
is valid before had

 [3:18 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] which is what 736 is about

 [3:18 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] we need to be able to force a
recheck of the destination

 [3:18 pm] aidan.x.skinner  736 is still valid?

 [3:18 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] yes

 [3:19 pm] aidan.x.skinner  ok

 [3:19 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] I'd have to check the code to
confirm that the 0-10 code does the same destination validation

 [3:19 pm] aidan.x.skinner  i assigned it to arnaud to check

 [3:19 pm] aidan.x.skinner  rajith: do you know what the status of QPID-739 is?

 [3:20 pm] aidan.x.skinner  There was a commit against it, but I'm not
sure if it fixed it entirely

 [3:20 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] Same with 741

 [3:21 pm] aidan.x.skinner  rhs: do you know anything about QPID-751?

 [3:22 pm] aidan.x.skinner  I didn't think the python client did 0-10

 [3:22 pm] aidan.x.skinner  martin: 753 looks bad...

 [3:22 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] yeah... probabably means I just
fixed it and didn't udpate anything

 [3:22 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] As it is assigned to me will checkit out

 [3:23 pm] aidan.x.skinner  cheers

 [3:24 pm] aidan.x.skinner  rhs: giving you QPID-757 to check as well

 [3:25 pm] aidan.x.skinner  Rob: 761 still an issue?

 [3:26 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] yup

 [3:26 pm] aidan.x.skinner  the next one I'm not sure about is 773

 [3:26 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] Rob does the new Topic Exchange
handle arguments correctly in the unbind?

 [3:26 pm] partychat0  ["rob"] in the sense that they are ignored

 [3:27 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] thats fine the n769 still stands

 [3:27 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] the unbind ignores the args

 [3:27 pm] partychat0  ["rob"] This is the correct behaviour for 0-10

 [3:27 pm] partychat0  ["rob"] so it is not a defect

 [3:27 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] but not 08/0-9

 [3:27 pm] partychat0  ["rob"] for 0-8/0-9 it is undefined

 [3:27 pm] partychat0  ["rob"] so it is not a bugthere either

 [3:29 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] rob does the new topic exchange know
the difference between topics a.# and a.#.#

 [3:30 pm] partychat0  ["rob"] yes

 [3:30 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] sweet.

 [3:30 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] will just close off 769 as invalid then

 [3:30 pm] partychat0  ["rob"] i.e. it stores the non-normalised keys
in the binding

 [3:30 pm] partychat0  ["rob"] (but routes on the normalised)

 [3:30 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] those were the phrases I couldn't type

 [3:31 pm] aidan.x.skinner  Martin: QPID-825 is another candidate for
the exception handling fixed dealie

 [3:33 pm] aidan.x.skinner  and QPID-834

 [3:34 pm] aidan.x.skinner  and QPID-855

 [3:38 pm] aidan.x.skinner  rhs: is the RFC 1982 stuff finished for QPID-861?

 [3:38 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] 773 : ah yes closed

 [3:38 pm] partychat0  [rajith77@gmail.com] yes that stuff is done

 [3:39 pm] partychat0  [rajith77@gmail.com] I am reffering to QPID-861

 [3:39 pm] aidan.x.skinner  thanks

 [3:39 pm] aidan.x.skinner  martin: qpid-873?

 [3:40 pm] aidan.x.skinner  rajith, rhs: do either of you know about QPID-881?

 [3:40 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] 865 may be resolved but would need
to check.. I'll take it and look

 [3:40 pm] partychat0  [rajith77@gmail.com] checking

 [3:41 pm] aidan.x.skinner  Martin: did you ever check QPID-888 post refactor?

 [3:41 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] IIRC yes

 [3:42 pm] aidan.x.skinner  was it ok?

 [3:42 pm] partychat0  [rajith77@gmail.com] I believe 881 was done,
but I'd wait for conformation from rafi

 [3:43 pm] aidan.x.skinner  martin: 895?

 [3:43 pm] aidan.x.skinner  rhs: 901, is the java client using the
final 0-10 spec?

 [3:43 pm] aidan.x.skinner  (i don't see any other 0-10 spec in source, so...)

 [3:43 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] 895 : checking

 [3:44 pm] partychat0  [rajith77@gmail.com] aidan we completed that

 [3:44 pm] aidan.x.skinner  sweet

 [3:45 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] 865 : Still an issue... will put it
back in the pool

 [3:47 pm] partychat0  arnaud.simondepaquy@googlemail.com joined the chat

 [3:47 pm] aidan.x.skinner  hey arnaud!

 [3:47 pm] partychat0  [arnaud.simondepaquy@googlemail.com] hello

 [3:48 pm] aidan.x.skinner  welcome back from   you holiday, is
QPID-939 still a problem?

 [3:49 pm] partychat0  [arnaud.simondepaquy@googlemail.com] I believe
it is fixed

 [3:49 pm] aidan.x.skinner  ok. can you resolve it please?

 [3:49 pm] partychat0  [arnaud.simondepaquy@googlemail.com] I thought
we would have a "closing JIRA" meeting tomorrow

 [3:49 pm] aidan.x.skinner  we were going to, but Martin's on holiday
so we moved it to today, yesterday

 [3:51 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] Rob: RE: 888 and locking.. : Would
be good to have some Java Doc on the QueueEntryList and the
QueueEntryIterator to know that it doesn't throw a

 [3:52 pm] partychat0  ["rob"] yes - it would be good to have some Javadoc

 [3:53 pm] aidan.x.skinner  rajith: is   QPID-968 finished?

 [3:54 pm] partychat0  [rajith77@gmail.com] looking

 [3:54 pm] aidan.x.skinner  thanks

 [3:54 pm] partychat0  [rajith77@gmail.com] yep done

 [3:54 pm] aidan.x.skinner  arnaud: do you know what the status of QPID-881 is?

 [3:54 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] 895:resolved

 [3:55 pm] partychat0  [arnaud.simondepaquy@googlemail.com] looking

 [3:55 pm] aidan.x.skinner  Martin: 975?

 [3:56 pm] partychat0  [arnaud.simondepaquy@googlemail.com] Aidan: I
believe QPID-881 is solved but we need to double check that with rhs

 [3:56 pm] aidan.x.skinner  ok. rhs?

 [3:57 pm] aidan.x.skinner  martin: then 997...

 [4:00 pm] aidan.x.skinner  and then QPID-1k

 [4:02 pm] aidan.x.skinner  where did we get to with the discussion of
client property centralisation? QPID-1018

 [4:03 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] 997 : .not still usse , 997: closed

 [4:04 pm] partychat0  [arnaud.simondepaquy@googlemail.com] aidan: I
believe we started the discussion with QPID-1018

 [4:04 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] 1K : doesn't appear to have been
fixed but it is a test issue.

 [4:04 pm] partychat0  [arnaud.simondepaquy@googlemail.com] aidan:
this is not solved though

 [4:04 pm] aidan.x.skinner  ok

 [4:05 pm] aidan.x.skinner  rajith: is QPID-1043 finished?

 [4:06 pm] aidan.x.skinner  martin: QPID-1049?

 [4:06 pm] partychat0  [rajith77@gmail.com] I completed the matrix to
the best of my knowledge - I believe there maybe some inconsistencies
w.r.t .NET

 [4:07 pm] partychat0  [rajith77@gmail.com] can aidan/rob take an
action item to verify the matrix and then we could close the ticket

 [4:07 pm] aidan.x.skinner  where's the matrix?

 [4:08 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] 1049 : TopicExchange refactor did
away with it .. will close

 [4:10 pm] aidan.x.skinner  martin, arnuad: are we all done with
moving systests to QpidTestCase? QPID-1079

 [4:11 pm] partychat0  [rajith77@gmail.com]

 [4:11 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] Not all tests are QTCs

 [4:11 pm] partychat0  [arnaud.simondepaquy@googlemail.com] aidan: I
believe we are

 [4:11 pm] partychat0  [arnaud.simondepaquy@googlemail.com] martin:
which ones are not?

 [4:11 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] Mainly due to the moving all all
system tests from client to systests last week

 [4:11 pm] aidan.x.skinner  and, 1080, has anybody seen
TopicSessiontest fail recently?

 [4:12 pm] aidan.x.skinner  rajith: matrix looks mostly accurate,
although java broker 0-10 'in progress' is a bit of a stretch

 [4:12 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] I'll just go with the first
alphabetic test as proof

 [4:12 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] AMQQDeferedOrderingTest

 [4:13 pm] partychat0  [rajith77@gmail.com] aidan - lol - little bit
of marketing to keep folks interested

 [4:13 pm] aidan.x.skinner  marketing only ~= lying

 [4:13 pm] partychat0  [rajith77@gmail.com] well its only a semi lie,
bcos we are doing bits and pieces there

 [4:14 pm] aidan.x.skinner  yeeass

 [4:14 pm] aidan.x.skinner  anyway

 [4:14 pm] aidan.x.skinner  QueueBrowser*Test failing for anybody still?

 [4:14 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] nope

 [4:14 pm] aidan.x.skinner  1081

 [4:17 pm] aidan.x.skinner  Rob: QPID-1093 fixed by the refactor?

 [4:18 pm] aidan.x.skinner  Arnaud: can you close or add more detail
to 1094 please?

 [4:18 pm] aidan.x.skinner  Martin: did 1101 get merged?

 [4:18 pm] aidan.x.skinner  rajith: is 1102 finished?

 [4:20 pm] partychat0  [arnaud.simondepaquy@googlemail.com] aidan: ok,
I have closed it

 [4:20 pm] partychat0  [rajith77@gmail.com] yep we can close 1102 now

 [4:20 pm] partychat0  [rajith77@gmail.com] its been made the default
transport now

 [4:23 pm] aidan.x.skinner  cool

 [4:24 pm] aidan.x.skinner  anraud: is 1106 still live?

 [4:24 pm] aidan.x.skinner  and similar with 1109

 [4:25 pm] aidan.x.skinner  martin: 1117?

 [4:25 pm] partychat0  [arnaud.simondepaquy@googlemail.com] aidan:
1106 it still live

 [4:26 pm] partychat0  [arnaud.simondepaquy@googlemail.com] aidan: I
believe we can close 1109 as we are now using the io transport

 [4:27 pm] aidan.x.skinner  righyt ho

 [4:27 pm] partychat0  [arnaud.simondepaquy@googlemail.com] rajith: I
believe the io transport prevents the client app runnin gout of mmory,
does it?

 [4:27 pm] aidan.x.skinner  how about qpid 1123?

 [4:27 pm] partychat0  [rajith77@gmail.com] yep

 [4:27 pm] aidan.x.skinner  and 1127

 [4:28 pm] aidan.x.skinner  arnaud: both of those are assigned to you I believe

 [4:28 pm] partychat0  [arnaud.simondepaquy@googlemail.com] aidan: checking

 [4:29 pm] aidan.x.skinner  rajith: are you done with 1140?

 [4:29 pm] partychat0  [arnaud.simondepaquy@googlemail.com] aidan:
1123 should be fixed but we need to ask rhs to close it

 [4:29 pm] partychat0  [rajith77@gmail.com] looking

 [4:30 pm] partychat0  [rajith77@gmail.com] yep its done, we can close 1140

 [4:30 pm] partychat0  [arnaud.simondepaquy@googlemail.com] aidan: I
have closed 1127

 [4:31 pm] aidan.x.skinner  arnaud: what does rhs have to do with qpid 1123?

 [4:31 pm] aidan.x.skinner  have there been subsequent fixes to
address the actual issue, or just the timeout on the test?

 [4:31 pm] aidan.x.skinner  rajith: 1141?

 [4:32 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] rajith: what class are you refering too?

 [4:32 pm] aidan.x.skinner  arnaud: also, i meant to ask about qpid-1130

 [4:32 pm] partychat0  [arnaud.simondepaquy@googlemail.com] aidan: I
has solved the threading issue

 [4:32 pm] partychat0  [arnaud.simondepaquy@googlemail.com] aidan: so
we need to ask him if he really did it

 [4:32 pm] aidan.x.skinner  ah, ok. assigning to rafi for comment then...

 [4:33 pm] partychat0  [arnaud.simondepaquy@googlemail.com] aidan:
1130 is closed

 [4:33 pm] aidan.x.skinner  cool

 [4:34 pm] aidan.x.skinner  rhs: are you in massive call hell?

 [4:36 pm] aidan.x.skinner  rajith: are you done with QPID-1161?

 [4:39 pm] aidan.x.skinner  rhs, martin: is 1184 fixed?

 [4:41 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] The change rhs made certainly seems
to improve things.. thought I'd rather have one log with stout and
stderr... thats just my preference.

 [4:41 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] not a real requirements

 [4:42 pm] aidan.x.skinner  have added a comment as such

 [4:42 pm] aidan.x.skinner  rajith?

 [4:42 pm] partychat0  ["martin"] ta

 [4:46 pm] partychat0  [rajith77@gmail.com] looking - sorry didn't see
the message

 [4:47 pm] aidan.x.skinner  thanks

 [4:47 pm] partychat0  [rajith77@gmail.com] testkit is done

 [4:47 pm] aidan.x.skinner  thanks

 [4:47 pm] aidan.x.skinner  and so are we!

 [4:48 pm] partychat0  [rajith77@gmail.com] martin, aidan, when u get
a chance pls check it out - details are in QPID-1161

 [4:48 pm] aidan.x.skinner  we managed to close out around 45 issues

 [4:48 pm] aidan.x.skinner  from 260-something to 219

 [4:48 pm] partychat0  [rajith77@gmail.com] thats good progress

 [4:49 pm] aidan.x.skinner  and there are a few which I assigned to
rhs which can probably get closed as well but it was hard to tell

View raw message