[09:11:41] ┬┬─┐┌─┐ ┌─┐┬ ┬┌─┐┌─┐┬─┐┌┐┌┌─┐┌┬┐┌─┐ ┌─┐┬─┐┌─┐ [09:11:41] ┬┬─┐┌─┐ ┌─┐┬ ┬┌─┐┌─┐┬─┐┌┐┌┌─┐┌┬┐┌─┐ ┌─┐┬─┐┌─┐ [09:11:45] │├┬┘│ └─┐│ │├─┘├┤ ├┬┘│││├┤ │ └─┐ │ │├┬┘│ ┬ [09:11:45] │├┬┘│ └─┐│ │├─┘├┤ ├┬┘│││├┤ │ └─┐ │ │├┬┘│ ┬ [09:11:49] ┴┴└─└─┘o└─┘└─┘┴ └─┘┴└─┘└┘└─┘ ┴ └─┘o└─┘┴└─└─┘ [09:11:50] ┴┴└─└─┘o└─┘└─┘┴ └─┘┴└─┘└┘└─┘ ┴ └─┘o└─┘┴└─└─┘ [09:11:53] h a s h a r h o o | a w a y z h u y i f e i 1 9 9 9 _ j a c k m c b a r n g w i c k e r o b l a [ m ] s i r _ l e s t a t y a d d s h o r e j z e r e b e c k i c s n o w o l f N i h a r i k a k a l d a r i s t a s h b o t K e e g a n j d l r o b s o n M a x S e m s t e p h a n e b i s s o n p h e d e n s k o g J a m e s _ F A m i r 1 m a t a n y a e d d i e g p A a r o n S c h u l z b r i o n r o b l [09:11:54] hashar hoo|away zhuyifei1999_ jackmcbarn gwicke robla[m] sir_lestaty addshore jzerebecki c snowolf Niharika kaldari stashbot Keegan jdlrobson MaxSem stephanebisson phedenskog James_F Amir1 matanya eddiegp AaronSchulz brion robla Skizzerz marxarelli|afk AlexZ ggherdov` Isarra Nemo_bis SpydarOO7 wm-bot3 no_justification godog dr0ptp4kt_away mdholloway wmopbot dapatrick quiddity Ivy SMalyshev RoanKattouw csteipp sbailey CindyCicaleseWMF musikanimal pala [09:59:02] Krinkle: Yeah, we should probably get that stuff done too https://github.com/wikimedia/at-ease/blob/master/composer.json#L2 [09:59:20] And then when we do the next bump in core/vendor (to remove the back compat layer) rename the package we use too [11:40:00] "PHP test coverage increased (or stayed the same)" [11:40:08] legoktm: Can we not (easily) differentiate? [16:20:11] CindyCicaleseWMF: annual plan question. Will MediaWiki Platform be continuing the "3rd parties" outcome in FY18/19 or do y'all think you will be done with that line of work? [16:21:58] bd808: It should definitely continue. I was just reading the Tech Community Building program to see if it fit. Should an Outcome be added there? Related to Outcome 3? [16:24:10] CindyCicaleseWMF: yeah, it might work just to add an objective there for your specific plans. That outcome was one I had in the Cloud Services program last year and moved to TCB as part of trying to reduce the nubmer of programs our work falls in [16:24:44] having your own outcome would be fine too. Its up to you and the team I think [16:26:52] bd808: sounds good! I'll try to decide today. Scrambling to prepare for the meeting I didn't know about. [16:31:31] CindyCicaleseWMF: :) you will be fine. It's just talking today. I think many of us are about 50% done with the work [16:32:02] bd808: whew! good to know! [16:46:31] Reedy: we can easily differentiate, but I have no way to report it via Jenkins/Zuul: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/qa/2018-February/002684.html [17:06:16] Reedy: the message is created by Zuul not Jenkins. Jenkins job just fails or passes based on exit code [17:07:05] Maybe if zuul supports varying on a third state we could do it. Eg state fail could be equal and unstable could be decreased [17:07:22] Jenkins has 4 different job status codes I think [17:07:37] hashar said that zuul treats unstable as failure [17:07:53] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/qa/2018-February/002686.html [17:08:14] yup UNSTABLE is supposed to be for tests that fails to pass [17:08:24] while FAILURE is for the build erroring out [17:08:34] regarldess both should be treated by zuul as a failure [17:09:01] internally zuul has something like: if buildresult.status != 'SUCCESS': build.failed = True [17:09:59] def didAllJobsSucceed(self, item): [17:09:59] if build.result != 'SUCCESS': [17:09:59] return False [17:32:13] also, if someone wants to review some patches to increase test coverage https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/q/topic:registration-tests :) [23:06:10] T186915 could use a set of eyes [23:06:10] T186915: Revision::ensureTitle: Could not determine title for page ID... - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T186915