[00:03:52] rmoen: just create a random password [00:03:56] it doesn't need to be memorable :) [00:04:11] ok [00:17:12] jdlrobson: ok so all looks good except now its reporting "No changes" Maybe because https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/226448/ has been reviewed already ? [01:00:05] rmoen: i;m done for the day. barry should review that patch soon [01:00:15] tomorrow morning we'll setup a new barry from scratch.. not sure on what yet :) [01:00:37] rmoen: maybe we could pair first thing and run through it? [01:01:13] maybe create a new account under your name that reviews non-mobile smoke tests :) [01:01:20] e.g. ~@smoke [01:01:38] anyway thanks for all your efforts today :D [03:13:51] jdlrobson: sounds good [15:03:41] When will you push a new TestFlight update? Expires in three days. :/ [16:05:33] hey bearND. am i missing something in this dev preferences patch? if we're not using V1 doesn't that imply V2 and vice versa? [16:05:58] bearND: It sounds like if V2 is enabled, use V2. If V2 is disabled, use V1. What happens here if V2 and V1 can be disabled? Is there a V3? I'm not sure why there are two booleans for two options [16:07:10] niedzielski: For this patch there is only one new boolean: expJsonPageLoad. The other one was renamed to be more specific for the HTML stuff, which gets switched at a much higher level. [16:07:45] bearND: ah, so the options aren't mutually exclusive? [16:08:36] niedzielski: The html page load gets switched at the PageViewFragmentInternal level while the two different JSON page loads get switched at the JsonPageLoadStrategy level. [16:08:41] niedzielski: I think the source of the confusion is that there's now a V3 (experimental JSON loading) [16:09:07] niedzielski: So, if would first check if we turn on the experimental html page load if so, then there is no check for the json variants [16:09:21] if not then we check the json variant [16:09:24] s [16:10:43] bearND: I see, so checking both in the prefs wouldn't lead to chaos. Still, it seems weird to be able to have both checked. [16:11:27] niedzielski: yeah, if you've checked the html one then it doesn't matter what you do with the json one [16:12:01] bearND: what do we do if they're both unchecked? [16:12:27] niedzielski: that's the current standard behavior, using api.php action=mobileview [16:13:21] bearND: ok i think that makes sense [16:13:25] thanks [16:36:37] bearND, quick question re the public mobile api end points: do you think any of those could reasonably become useful outside of the mobile context too? [16:37:29] the lead section plus some metadata seems to be potentially useful for mobile web and hovercards-like functionality as well [16:38:44] the downside of making it more general purpose & having other users would be a need for more stability [16:38:51] you couldn't treat it as a private end point [16:44:54] gwicke: I think at least for this calendar year that the service is probably not very useful outside the mobile context. Having said that I would consider mobile web to be inside the mobile context. [16:46:46] bearND: we have stability markers per entry point, so you could start with something named as general but marked as experimental & then gradually stabilize it [16:47:26] if you think that it's going to become generally useful in the longer term, and think that it makes sense for you to stabilize it eventually [16:52:16] dbrant|brb: there are ~40 stories in Needs Triage in the Android backlog. Want to get together at some point and sort through a few? [16:52:52] gwicke: General usefulness of the service would be so far out. I don't know if it makes sense to plan or even strive for it. I'd prefer to keep it more flexible initially, and don't want any expectation of stability outside the mobile context. That's what the general PHP API is for. [16:53:58] bearND: the main thing it matters for now is the naming [16:54:39] basically, whether to prefix with mobile- in addition to marking it as experimental, or grabbing the more general name & marking it as experimental [16:56:52] we can rename later in any case, so it's not too critical [16:57:48] mbinder: sure; after estimation? [16:58:46] dbrant: looks like today we're doing standup followed by prioritization, followed by iOS estimation. OK to do it around 12:30 pacific? [16:58:59] mbinder: yep! [16:59:05] sweet [16:59:32] gwicke: sounds like either way we would still mark it as experimental. So, the real question is: do we want to drop the mobile- prefix? If we were to drop the mobile- prefix then there would be already a conflict of the html route with Parsoid. [17:02:13] yeah, definitely for html [17:02:39] the html end point seems to be perhaps the most mobile-specific [17:02:48] and least generally interesting [17:03:18] I was thinking more about the lead section / page structure & other metadata JSON end point [17:29:19] mbinder: can you please update the app prio meeting description to remove "tech lead" as a required participant? [17:29:51] coreyfloyd: are you able to make it to story prio? i could spare some time but should probably work on bugs [17:29:59] bgerstle: sure. Just to clarify, that's been a recent change? I recall you talking about it but we never followed up. [17:30:24] mbinder: sry I had to run - stomach [17:30:35] mhurd_afk: no sweat, figured [17:31:27] oh no :-/ [17:31:50] mbinder: yeah i asked about it last time it was scheduled, and we determined that the description hadn't been updated post-tech-pro/lead split [17:32:04] bgerstle: word [17:32:28] #amirite coreyfloyd ? [17:33:28] bgerstle: ya [17:33:39] cool [18:13:48] rmoen: okay gonna setup a bot from scratch... let's give this a go :) [18:13:55] jdlrobson: lets [18:14:15] you want to hangout and watch? [18:14:18] ya [18:14:49] jdlrobson: i need 1 min [18:15:27] sent you hangout rmoen i'm gonana start [18:15:34] k [19:31:17] dbrant: you around? [20:04:17] bmansurov: so i just ran through the process with rmoen for browser test creation.. are you oaky with me moving to sign off on the basis that whoever signs it off needs to setup an instance themselves for Gather? [20:04:38] jdlrobson: sounds good [20:06:29] jdlrobson: what do you think about to use the verified flag, instead of code-review for automatic browser tests? :) [20:21:59] bearND: yay, bikeshedding! [20:22:07] (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T103811#1480819) [20:55:49] gwicke: hehe [20:58:32] bearND: what is the mobile-html route going to be used for? [21:22:06] gwicke: not sure if it will survive. I've put the html route on hold for now [21:23:08] the idea is/was to use it to directly load/stream the payload to the client's WebView using webView.loadUrl [21:23:48] okay; should we leave it out for now? [21:23:57] (in the public API) [21:24:25] yes, if that's an option i'd be fine with that. We could always add it later [21:24:50] doing is easy ;) [21:25:08] :) [21:29:58] FlorianSW: last time i checked you needed certain permissions to do that [21:30:24] (verified code review) [21:31:06] jdlrobson: correct, but I think reflect better, what the bot does :) (There should be a group, which has only verified rights, already) [21:35:20] dr0ptp4kt: we have meeting? [21:50:18] rmoen: ah, just saw the ping. on the video with you now :) thanks for the ping :) [22:50:24] etonkovidova: hey! [22:50:34] etonkovidova: would you have any time to work on some stuff in the iOS QA column? [22:50:43] etonkovidova: i'm about to head out, but some of the things should be straightforward [22:50:48] if so i can start another build [22:50:48] bgerstle: hello :) [22:51:35] bgerstle: please give a link to your new workboard or something that has QA column :) [22:52:18] bgerstle: sorry - I see it: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/wikipedia-ios-app-development/ [22:52:25] etonkovidova: ah yeah that's it [22:52:27] sorry was rummaging for a link [22:52:56] bgerstle: will go through it - thx! [22:56:47] etonkovidova: let me cut a new alpha [23:00:27] bgerstle: 4.1.6(165) is not the most recent? [23:00:38] etonkovidova: no, i'm doing another right now [23:00:49] i accidentally broke a (very minor) unit test. just fixed and re-triggering build now [23:00:49] bgerstle: sure [23:00:52] hang tight for a minute [23:03:28] etonkovidova: you should get a notification when it's done. if something goes wrong i'll let you know [23:04:09] bgerstle: waiting... :) [23:11:00] etonkovidova: did you get the notification from test flight? [23:11:36] bgerstle: yup. 4.1.6(168) [23:11:49] bgerstle: have a nice weekend! [23:14:14] You too!