Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
<Marc9> Item 1: supporting 30K tables in one db <madhuracj> Hi everybody <Marc9> I would say to that: it's an edge case, we won't support this <dstorm> Does MySQL has any restrictions on it? <madhuracj> 30k looked little too big <Marc9> dstorm: no <dstorm> then I would say why are we blocking users to do so? <Marc9> dstorm, we are not blocking <zixtor> What seems to be the issue btw? If someone researched.. <dstorm> I mean if it stops responding then its like they are blocked to do so <Marc9> The request never completes <zixtor> dstorm: its not that we are imposing it consciously ;) <zixtor> anyway it surely seems an edge case <madhuracj> According to the reported everything works <madhuracj> just that it take time <dstorm> Can using legacy navigation in that case does any good? <Marc9> dstorm probably <madhuracj> Legacy navigation is just UI on the same loading mechanism <madhuracj> So I suppose it wont help <zixtor> I think it will make only minor difference <Marc9> dstorm, you mean pre-4.0 ? <dstorm> Marc9, yes <madhuracj> I was talking about the configurable feature we have in 4.4 <dstorm> I always had concern with the performance issues of new navigation tree. <Marc9> Anyway, if we agree that it's an edge case ... <dstorm> I agree that its an edge case <madhuracj> Of course I agree <dstorm> but if there is a way to fix it and we should look for it <zixtor> I too <dstorm> *then <zixtor> I think it would require much effort to further optimize existing navigation mechanism <Marc9> dstorm I believe we have other priorities which are not edge cases, so I would close this "won't fix" <madhuracj> I can investigate the issue and write to the devel mailing list whether the situation can be improved <Marc9> madhuracj sure but don't lose too much time on this, please <madhuracj> Sure. <Marc9> Moving on? <dstorm> Marc9, I am not saying that we should fix this in priority but we can come back to this later <dstorm> We can move on then <Marc9> dstorm, well, we said that for other bugs and they are in the tracker 12 years later <Marc9> 2. Bring back the start row and number of rows in Browse <madhuracj> I do not see a strong reason to bring it back <Marc9> Isaac said that he is not in favor; me neither <zixtor> I also feel having such feature does amount to cluttering the interface.. <nijel> I also don't see much need for this <Marc9> I am happy with the uncluttering that removing this feature did in the past <dstorm> I also feel that it won't be used much <Marc9> Moving on <Marc9> 3. Browse mode: apply functions to columns (SUM, AVG, etc) <Marc9> 11 years ago, Michal was unsure about this being used enough to be justified <Marc9> I share his view <Marc9> Opinions? <zixtor> I find it may be useful but again many things can be useful.. <nijel> I haven't changed my opinion in 11 years ;-) <dstorm> Maybe this could be added in query builder <madhuracj> I share the same view <Marc9> zixtor right and we must think about keeping / reaching a clean UI <Marc9> dstorm IMO it's already there in the query builder, but <Marc9> the visual query builder is not well known <Marc9> Moving on <dstorm> Marc9, to be frank even I have not used visual query builder ever <Marc9> 4. Working around a PHP bug <nijel> no workaround for php bug <Marc9> Especially since this PHP bug has been fixed <madhuracj> exactly <Marc9> It's not really our problem if distros are slow to integrate fixes <zixtor> Agreed.. <Marc9> Also, we did not hear about this problem much <Marc9> Moving on to our "big" discussion item <Marc9> 5. Unit tests and HTML <Marc9> zixtor we are listening to you :) <Marc9> (then to others) <zixtor> Well, as we shift to template system, changes in HTML will mostly be just format changes and they will mostly deviate from the static assertions in unit tests.. <zixtor> So in my view its a waste of time to keep format correcting the HTML in these tests... and they come of use rarely <Marc9> Is it ok to say that we have functions that generate HTML and functions that do not generate HTML? ... <zixtor> Same utility can be derived by checking for keywords and just having html validation.. <Marc9> So, we should rethink our tests for functions who generate HTML <dstorm> Even, I don't think we should assert HTML output in unit tests and instead assert only the data that data is being put into it. <zixtor> Marc9: surely we have both kind of functions <dstorm> *assert only the data that is being put into it. <Marc9> Note that the removal of assertTag in phpunit gives us even less choices <zixtor> Marc9: right <zixtor> Maybe we can change to data checking as we templatize a particular script.. and till then keep it same.. <Marc9> I mean, it's one thing to test a function like pow(), and a function that generates HTML <Marc9> zixtor right <zixtor> yeah they are quite different <Marc9> For example, a function that is supposed to generate a dropdown (SELECT, OPTION): chances are thin that it would fail <dstorm> I think Selenium is the correct place for UI tests. <zixtor> Marc9: agreed.. <zixtor> dstorm: right <Marc9> zixtor, is there an example of data checking in tests done by Jason? * udan11 a quitté (Remote host closed the connection) <zixtor> Marc9: no not yet <zixtor> maybe we can ask him to start working on that <Marc9> and did he give his views about unit testing his code? <zixtor> So far that there should be something other than asserting for html.. no idea as he seems to be working further leaving tests for now <Marc9> dstorm, with Selenium won't we have the same problems as asserting HTML output? <Marc9> (on moving code) <dstorm> we won't be asserting html outputs but instead doing user actions to ensure elements are behaving a they should <dstorm> so if HTML breaks then things like dropdown, checkboxes should stop working <dstorm> *as <Marc9> dstorm, OK, I'm not familiar enough with Selenium <Marc9> zixtor, what would be the new way of testing <input type="hidden" name="field" value="foo" /> <zixtor> dstorm: do we have selenium coverage of most UI? I am not familiar abt it <dstorm> I don't think it covers most of the UI. <Marc9> Wasn't there a problem with Selenium on Travis? <zixtor> Marc9: each template right now uses some data variables.. so we can assert that whole HTML contains valid values of those variables and we can just validate the whole HTML.. <Marc9> zixtor ok <dstorm> assert the data and just parse the html to see if there is DOM error? <Marc9> nijel madhuracj anything to add on this? <nijel> dstorm: that sounds good enough <Marc9> By the way, via email Isaac said that he also doubted the usefulness of testing HTML <madhuracj> Well, I agree it's little point asserting html tags <zixtor> I just saw a popular service to validate, https://validator.nu/ we can research more <Marc9> zixtor can it be linked to phpunit? I guess not <dstorm> we can use XML parser in php? <zixtor> dstorm: but yeah we can just parse it.. <Marc9> To conclude, we won't add more HTML tests and as we move to templates, we won't assert HTML tags <Marc9> Can we briefly discuss the next IRL meeting? <madhuracj> Sure <zixtor> ok <Marc9> We had suggestions for March 2016 and summer 2016, <Marc9> and I added suggestions for October 2015 and August 2015 * cipi est maintenant connu sous le nom CiPi <Marc9> So, it 2015 too early? <Marc9> is <zixtor> I expect I will be able to attend those in 2016.. But for this year, in August or October it wil be difficult to find time for me.. <madhuracj> August 2015 would not be possible for me, but others I would be able to attend. <Marc9> Ideally we should aim to have a maximum of participants <dstorm> August 2015 seems too early <Marc9> I guess that Singapore was the most promising one (March 2016) <dstorm> Maybe we can do vote similar to what we did for choosing the time for team meeting which would give us an idea when maximum team members would be available <zixtor> Surely sounds like most members can attend that.. <madhuracj> Marc9 Can we do something like a poll where everyone can rank conerences based on availbility and on how interesting the conference is <madhuracj> I think we did that for previous IRL meeting <nijel> madhuracj: sounds like a good idea to sort them <Marc9> madhuracj sure, I'll organize this, but is it too soon to ask for 2016? I mean, we don't even have the dates for DebConf 16 <zixtor> yeah will be nice to have vote/survey to have most people attend as its quite worth it to meet everyone after traveling ;) <madhuracj> Marc9 true <Marc9> what's the delay for you Asian guys, about the visas? 2 months? <dstorm> Marc9, lets add only those options for which dates are finalized and later add more options? <Marc9> dstorm, I would prefer to do a final poll with a fixed limit date to answer <dstorm> Marc9, depends on where we would be going <zixtor> It can be applied for Europe 10 days before, i think Smita got it this year <madhuracj> But 2 months should generally be enough in my experience <dstorm> I applied very early this time but was bit troublesome for me. <Marc9> Ok so a poll at beginning of 2016 should be fine <Marc9> dstorm you were early and got troubles? <madhuracj> Whether each member needs to obtain a visa to attend each conference can be a question in the poll <Marc9> madhuracj good point <Marc9> Anything to add on this or other subjects? <zixtor> Still 8 minutes to go <dstorm> Trouble as in had to go for an interview to consulate which was quite a journey <Marc9> dstorm maybe Singapore will be easier in this case <dstorm> Yes, it would be for sure. <madhuracj> I do not require a visa for Singapore <madhuracj> I suppose it is same for dstorm and zixtor <Marc9> and Smita <madhuracj> yes <zixtor> yeah need to look abt that on net <Marc9> I do not require a visa for Singapore <zixtor> Yeah it seems its available on arrival <nijel> I don't seem to need it as well <Marc9> With this, I hereby declare: <Marc9> *** End of team meeting ***
Clone this wiki locally
Press h to open a hovercard with more details.