[00:43:35]  MarkUsBot joined #markus.
 [00:43:35]  -:#markus- [freenode-info] help freenode weed out clonebots -- please register your IRC nick and auto-identify: http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#nicksetup
 [00:49:08]  dadacha (ddadacha@nat/redhat/x-gmmatetzpptpxgtr) joined #markus.
 [00:51:16]  ddadacha (ddadacha@nat/redhat/x-ypzvgjxwwhrwrirn) left irc: Ping timeout: 248 seconds
 [02:10:02]  dddadacha (ddadacha@nat/redhat/x-euihalvlnrotizcz) joined #markus.
 [02:13:48]  dadacha (ddadacha@nat/redhat/x-gmmatetzpptpxgtr) left irc: Ping timeout: 240 seconds
 [02:24:18]  #markus: mode change '-o NelleV' by NelleV!~Nelle@unaffiliated/nellev
 [02:24:52] <NelleV>  dddadacha: are you on markus-admin's mailing list ?
 [03:34:55]  lissyx (~alex@ joined #markus.
 [04:15:48]  MarkUsGithubCIA (~MarkUsGit@sh2.rs.github.com) joined #markus.
 [04:15:49] <MarkUsGithubCIA>  [Markus] NelleV pushed 2 new commits to master: http://git.io/9btYvg
 [04:15:49] <MarkUsGithubCIA>  [Markus/master] Fix: Bad <br> tag in code - Benjamin Vialle
 [04:15:49] <MarkUsGithubCIA>  [Markus/master] Merge pull request #751 from benjaminvialle/html_error - Varoquaux
 [04:15:49]  MarkUsGithubCIA (~MarkUsGit@sh2.rs.github.com) left #markus.
 [04:36:33]  MarkUsGithubCIA (~MarkUsGit@sh2.rs.github.com) joined #markus.
 [04:36:33] <MarkUsGithubCIA>  [Markus] NelleV pushed 2 new commits to master: http://git.io/dM-RdA
 [04:36:33] <MarkUsGithubCIA>  [Markus/master] Fix: duplicated name test in functional tests - Benjamin Vialle
 [04:36:33] <MarkUsGithubCIA>  [Markus/master] Merge pull request #752 from benjaminvialle/functionnal_tests - Varoquaux
 [04:36:33]  MarkUsGithubCIA (~MarkUsGit@sh2.rs.github.com) left #markus.
 [04:57:04]  MarkUsGithubCIA (~MarkUsGit@sh3.rs.github.com) joined #markus.
 [04:57:04] <MarkUsGithubCIA>  [Markus] NelleV pushed 2 new commits to master: http://git.io/F8GA5g
 [04:57:04] <MarkUsGithubCIA>  [Markus/master] Fix: other duplicated name in test - Benjamin Vialle
 [04:57:04] <MarkUsGithubCIA>  [Markus/master] Merge pull request #754 from benjaminvialle/duplicated_name_in_test - Varoquaux
 [04:57:04]  MarkUsGithubCIA (~MarkUsGit@sh3.rs.github.com) left #markus.
 [06:10:02]  lissyx (~alex@ left irc: Ping timeout: 245 seconds
 [06:13:05]  lissyx (~alex@ joined #markus.
 [08:30:16]  klejao (IceChat77@nat/ibm/x-cssibgfzyilvuqji) joined #markus.
 [08:32:28]  klejao (IceChat77@nat/ibm/x-cssibgfzyilvuqji) left irc: Client Quit
 [08:57:57]  lissyx (~alex@ left irc: Ping timeout: 245 seconds
 [09:02:02]  lissyx (~alex@ joined #markus.
 [09:50:59]  Nick change: dddadacha -> ddadacha
 [09:54:15] <ddadacha>  NelleV: there's a secret admin list? :O
 [09:54:27] <ddadacha>  no I'm not on, only saw markus-users and -dev
 [09:56:15]  ddadacha (ddadacha@nat/redhat/x-euihalvlnrotizcz) left irc: Changing host
 [09:56:15]  ddadacha (ddadacha@fedora/ddadacha) joined #markus.
 [09:56:15]  #markus: mode change '+o ddadacha' by ChanServ!ChanServ@services.
 [10:37:32]  lissyx (~alex@ left irc: Ping timeout: 245 seconds
 [10:39:14]  lissyx (~alex@ joined #markus.
 [11:11:42]  lissyx (~alex@ left irc: Ping timeout: 245 seconds
 [11:27:35]  klejao (IceChat77@nat/ibm/x-vpxdaqpkntpcbelg) joined #markus.
 [11:33:28] <klejao>  hi all, for some reason my forked repository is ahead than the markus repository. do you know the command to rebase my forked repo so that it is synch with the main markus repo?
 [11:53:13]  tobioboye (~oloruntob@ joined #markus.
 [11:53:13]  #markus: mode change '+o tobioboye' by ChanServ!ChanServ@services.
 [11:56:53]  mikeing2001 (a5cc37fb@gateway/web/freenode/ip. joined #markus.
 [11:57:24] <ddadacha>  klejao: 'git push origin master' should do the trick
 [11:57:56] <ddadacha>  klejao: actually
 [11:58:08] <ddadacha>  klejao: you cloned _your_ fork of markus and not the main markus repo, right?
 [11:58:33] <klejao>  yes i cloned my fork repo
 [11:58:34] <ddadacha>  klejao: if so then yes, that command will push whatever your latest pull of markus-upstream was into your fork
 [11:58:50] <klejao>  ok thanks. let me try that
 [11:59:16]  jeffles (~jeffles@173-230-166-168.cable.teksavvy.com) joined #markus.
 [12:00:21] <klejao>  ddadacha: i got confused with master, i thought that was the main repo
 [12:00:27] <klejao>  now i know
 [12:00:29] <klejao>  thank you
 [12:01:32] <ddadacha>  master depends on whatever you pull to it :P if you run git pull <markus-upstream-remote-name> master then master will contain the same changesets the main upstream markus repo contains
 [12:01:49]  karenreid (~karenreid@red-gw73.cs.toronto.edu) joined #markus.
 [12:01:49]  #markus: mode change '+o karenreid' by ChanServ!ChanServ@services.
 [12:02:02] <ddadacha>  if you're doingsay git pull origin master, then this will pull whichever changesets you have on your fork's master branch into your local master branch
 [12:05:26] <karenreid>  hi everyone
 [12:05:43] <mikeing2001>  hi
 [12:05:48] <jeffles>  gu
 [12:05:48] <klejao>  hi
 [12:05:50] <jeffles>  hi
 [12:05:57] <karenreid>  I'm guessing ddadacha has been explaining the new review procedures. :-)
 [12:06:12] <karenreid>  daryn mentioned that he might not be able to make it today
 [12:07:22] <karenreid>  So how does the new review procedure look?
 [12:09:57] <karenreid>  or is it not quite in place yet?
 [12:10:19] <mikeing2001>  under my understanding, it is not in place yet
 [12:11:01] <karenreid>  okay
 [12:11:25] <jeffles>  i thought we were using github's built-in one
 [12:11:57] <karenreid>  I know Mike Conley and Benjamin_V updated ReviewBoard to use the new github api, but I thought the plan was to try out the github builtin reviews
 [12:12:22] <karenreid>  (although I'm not sure how to look at/create/enable them)
 [12:13:06] <karenreid>  is it under pull requests?
 [12:13:29] <ddadacha>  karenreid: nope I was just explaining a bit of general git branching. No idea about the new review stuff yet =(
 [12:14:56] <karenreid>  ddadacha: that's what I get for coming in the middle of a conversation. :-)
 [12:15:33] <karenreid>  Okay, let's get on with the rest of the meeting
 [12:15:33] <ddadacha>  20 seconds too late =)
 [12:16:17] <karenreid>  klejao: could you start?
 [12:16:26] <klejao>  sureportdb
 [12:16:26] <klejao>  exit
 [12:16:27] <klejao>  r3p0rtdb
 [12:16:33] <klejao>  opsdb
 [12:16:46] <karenreid>  I couldn't find 293 as an issue
 [12:16:53] <karenreid>  I'm guessing it was a typo
 [12:17:09] <klejao>  sorry my autohotkey was messed up
 [12:17:19] <klejao>  let me go check
 [12:17:20] <karenreid>  oh, or was that part of the reason rb got updated?
 [12:18:07] <klejao>  https://github.com/MarkUsProject/Markus/issues/293#issuecomment-6114810
 [12:18:32] <klejao>  it's the same one as last week. I was just having problems uploading the diff file
 [12:18:40] <klejao>  but it's okay now.
 [12:19:05] <klejao>  i am now able to upload the diff
 [12:20:08] <karenreid>  thanks for the reference. How is the actual work on the bug going?
 [12:21:31] <klejao>  it's done. When a TA or admin clicks Collect all submissions the per_page, filter attributes are getting saved
 [12:21:41] <klejao>  although last week you mentioned another issue that is related to this
 [12:21:55] <klejao>  Daryn and I are planning to meet on Monday to work on that
 [12:22:13] <klejao>  it's basically choosing specific columns to display on the Submissions page
 [12:23:11] <karenreid>  klejao: does it also get saved when you navigate to an individual student?
 [12:25:13] <klejao>  Do you mean after marking a student and going back to the Submissions page?
 [12:25:21] <karenreid>  yes
 [12:25:35] <karenreid>  I think that might be the most common use case
 [12:26:29] <klejao>  Okay, I will have to take a look. Is it okay to open a new ticket for it
 [12:26:58] <karenreid>  sure
 [12:27:34] <klejao>  ok thank you.
 [12:27:46] <karenreid>  That was kind of the point of 293 though.
 [12:28:06] <karenreid>  I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing.
 [12:28:23] <klejao>  I thought 293 was only when TA clicks "Collect all Submissions"
 [12:28:31] <klejao>  i probably missed something
 [12:29:39] <karenreid>  I don't think you really need to open a new issue. "retrieve the submission for a group" really means go to that group's submission and then back to the submissions page
 [12:30:03] <klejao>  I see.. okay.
 [12:30:19] <karenreid>  This may be a more complicated issue since the goal is to have the data persist even when you leave the page and come back
 [12:30:55] <karenreid>  Any questions about it now?
 [12:31:10] <karenreid>  Please send email or comment on the issue if you have any qestions
 [12:31:14] <karenreid>  questions
 [12:31:24] <karenreid>  mikeing2001: how is your work going?
 [12:31:33]  m_conley_away (~mconley@li67-220.members.linode.com) joined #markus.
 [12:32:07] <mikeing2001>  One thing i forgot to mention in the blog post was that i now have memory_repository working for issue #656
 [12:32:27] <karenreid>  Nice!
 [12:32:34] <mikeing2001>  I am trying to write test cases for the svn_repository portion of the code which is where i am stuck right now
 [12:33:08] <karenreid>  what is the main sticking point?
 [12:33:19] <mikeing2001>  I been having issue creating the repository for the groups
 [12:33:53] <mikeing2001>  i been getting repository doesn't exists or is closed errors
 [12:34:43] <karenreid>  Are there other tests for other parts of the svn interactions that you can model?
 [12:34:54] <karenreid>  I'm guessing you are already doing that
 [12:35:14] <mikeing2001>  i have been trying to find a close enough example but i have not found one yet
 [12:35:44] <karenreid>  okay
 [12:35:53] <karenreid>  wish I could help more
 [12:36:22] <mikeing2001>  i will figure it out
 [12:36:30] <mikeing2001>  i always do
 [12:36:36] <mikeing2001>  :-)
 [12:37:10] <karenreid>  :)
 [12:37:44] <karenreid>  anything else on the other issues?
 [12:38:34] <mikeing2001>  issue 748, Assignment collection and the export file. I think there may be some miss communication on it
 [12:38:47] <mikeing2001>  on the comments posted
 [12:38:49] <karenreid>  :-)
 [12:39:37] <mikeing2001>  what i understand is the issue is when you collection assignments, the revision changes each time you collect assignments
 [12:39:42]  Nick change: m_conley_away -> m_conley
 [12:40:03] <karenreid>  No the revision only changes if the student has submitted something in between collections
 [12:40:31] <mikeing2001>  i'm going by the statement "Like a student will have a -r 2, then a -r 4, then a -r 2, etc. every time I collect."
 [12:40:42] <karenreid>  remember the collections happen over time.
 [12:40:50] <mikeing2001>  yes
 [12:40:57] <karenreid>  I have no idea where the final -r2 comes from
 [12:41:16] <karenreid>  it is either a bug (i.e., the export file isn't ordered by time)
 [12:41:44] <karenreid>  or somehow Dan tried to collect an older revision, but I think he was running "collect all submissions" each tiem.
 [12:41:45] <karenreid>  time
 [12:42:21] <mikeing2001>  Cause what i have seen before when working on issue 656 was i will collect assignment 3 times. First time it would be say r 3, next collection would be r 2 and the collection after that would be r3 again
 [12:42:53] <karenreid>  and there were no changes to the repo in betwee?
 [12:42:56] <karenreid>  between?
 [12:43:04] <mikeing2001>  yup, no changes
 [12:43:08] <karenreid>  yikes
 [12:43:29] <karenreid>  this could definitely be related
 [12:43:50] <karenreid>  weird behaviour!
 [12:43:53] <mikeing2001>  but it only occur under the grace day issue, where i would submit files for the next assignment
 [12:44:06] <mikeing2001>  before, the previous one was due
 [12:44:09] <karenreid>  so there were changes to the repo?
 [12:44:21] <karenreid>  but not to the assignment directory?
 [12:44:22] <mikeing2001>  yea, but different assignment
 [12:44:24] <karenreid>  okay
 [12:44:44] <karenreid>  still weird to see it go backwards
 [12:44:48] <mikeing2001>  but, my solution for 656 will solve this
 [12:45:25] <karenreid>  that would be great
 [12:45:32] <mikeing2001>  actually, what it was r 4 was submission for a2 and r3 was a submission for a1
 [12:45:50] <mikeing2001>  oops r3 was a2 and r2 was a1
 [12:46:22] <mikeing2001>  anyways, so what is issue 748 about then?
 [12:47:02] <karenreid>  Dan was collecting the same assignment multiple times. There shouldn't have been any other activity in the repo (even for other assignments).
 [12:47:22] <karenreid>  but it is quite likely that the students updated their repos in between collections.
 [12:48:00] <karenreid>  Okay, one of my question is whether we know if the export file list is ordered, or if it is just randomly pulled fro the db.
 [12:49:01] <mikeing2001>  i think it is ordered by user then time
 [12:50:58] <karenreid>  can you verify this?
 [12:51:11] <mikeing2001>  i will tonight
 [12:51:14] <karenreid>  thanks
 [12:51:35] <karenreid>  my experience is that unless things are explicitly sorted, you can't depend on the ordering.
 [12:52:07] <karenreid>  Anyhow, if we fix the problem of duplicate entries in the file, and we have confidence that the revision numbers are correct, then we don't have to worry about the ordering.
 [12:52:25] <karenreid>  jeffles: how are you doing? I hope you are feeling better.
 [12:52:39] <jeffles>  yep, i'm much better. wash't shingles luckily
 [12:53:01] <karenreid>  that is lucky. I've heard shingles is really bad
 [12:53:22] <jeffles>  yeah i had it once and the doctors were like "usually people relapse once in a year" so i was pretty nervous
 [12:53:40] <karenreid>  glad to hear you are better.
 [12:53:53] <karenreid>  So I guess we need to find more issues for you to work on. :-)
 [12:54:52] <jeffles>  yep. i'm looking at 603 right now actually
 [12:54:59] <jeffles>  not sure how far tobi might be on that
 [12:55:29] <jeffles>  there are a few things i missed for the prototype upgrade i need to update the review request with too
 [12:56:37] <karenreid>  Can you look at 628? Or was this part of your other fix?
 [12:57:31] <jeffles>  sure i'll look at it. it might be fixed, i'll try it
 [12:58:05] <jeffles>  oh
 [12:58:17] <jeffles>  i'm not sure it's a problem but i'll double check to be sure
 [12:58:31] <karenreid>  It sounds like putting you on the javascript issues is a good idea.
 [12:58:46] <karenreid>  maybe there aren't too many left
 [12:59:23] <jeffles>  yeah i don't mind taking on javascript stuff
 [13:00:17] <jeffles>  also have a small question, nobody minds if I update the doctype to HTML5 right?
 [13:00:47] <karenreid>  as long as there aren't any implications that might lead to problems
 [13:01:33] <jeffles>  cool.. so yeah i don't think 628 is a problem anymore
 [13:01:35] <karenreid>  looks like this is related to 662
 [13:02:16] <jeffles>  oh true
 [13:02:19] <karenreid>  jeffles: please add a comment with a reason why it isn't a problem any more and a suggestion to close it.
 [13:03:14] <karenreid>  If it didn't get completely resolved, it would be good to add a comment here too and take another look
 [13:03:25] <jeffles>  will do
 [13:03:33] <karenreid>  Thanks
 [13:03:35] <jeffles>  after i confirm what i think as to not make a fool of myself
 [13:03:48] <karenreid>  :-)
 [13:04:23] <karenreid>  Ignorance is *never* a problem. Feigning knowledge is what gets us into trouble. That's why I'd like to see the comment trail.