sp possible to start an app which creates a mir connection, but doesn't create a surface?
<alf> greyback: then again, I am not sure how IM indicators work, do they spawn a different process when showing the contacts window when clicking on the indicator (e.g. skype)?
<greyback> unlikely
<alf> greyback: fair point
<alf> greyback: perhaps I am being overly paranoid :)
<greyback> alf: I expect shell would still have the application marked as running in the launcher, so user will be able to see it
<alf> greyback: ok, so we basically want the same semantics as an X11 close event (a request that the client is free to ignore/handle as they wish).
<greyback> alf: I think that's reasonable. You?
<alf> greyback: I think so too (in general), but since I am not closely involved with window management work, I can't say how it fits with the WM grand plan.
 * alan_g wishes for the mir-nested-on-X "platform" once more
<alan_g> alf: how are you testing MirSurfaceVisibilityEvent? I've not yet been able to reproduce your faulure
<alan_g> *failure
 * alan_g reproduces failure
<alan_g> :)
<alf> alan_g: I just found that we have an fd leak that affects most repeated runs of acceptance test. It may be involved in these failures too, so I suggest we fix this first (looking into it now).
<alan_g> alf: I won't look at this any further until I hear from you. But let me know if I can help.
<alf> alan_g: thanks
<alf> alan_g: the failure in migrate-MirSurfaceVisibilityEvent doesn't seem to be related to the fd leak
<alan_g> alf: yeah. It was related to the NullFocusSetter
<alan_g> Any progress with the fd?
<alf> alan_g: Yes, our stub implementations of ClientBuffer(Factory) didn't release the fds passed to it through the MirBufferPackage, will have a fix soon
<alan_g> nice
#ubuntu-mir 2014-11-25
<mlankhorst> heh
<mlank
sp possible to start an app which creates a mir connection, but doesn't make a open? 
 < alf > greyback: then again, I am not sure how IM indicators exercise, do they spawn a different summons when show the contacts windowpane when chatter on the indicator (for example skype)? 
 < greyback > unlikely 
 < alf > greyback: fair point 
 < alf > rebel: perhaps I am being overly paranoid :) 
 < greyback > alf: I expect shell would still have the lotion marked as running in the launcher, so drug user will be able to see it 
 < alf > greyback: ok, thus we basically want the like semantics as an X11 close consequence (a request that the client is free to ignore / handle as they wish). 
 < greyback > alf: I think that's fair. You? 
 < alf > greyback: I think so too (in general), but since I am not closely involved with window management work, I can't say how it fits with the WM grand plan. 
  * alan_g wishes for the mir - nested - on - X " platform " once more 
 < alan_g > alf: how are you test MirSurfaceVisibilityEvent? I've not yet been able to reproduce your faulure 
 < alan_g > * bankruptcy 
  * alan_g reproduce bankruptcy 
 < alan_g > :) 
 < alf > alan_g: I just found that we have an fd leak that affects most repeated runs of toleration test. It may be involved in these failures too, so I suggest we fixate this first (looking into it now). 
 < alan_g > alf: I won't look at this any far until I learn from you. But let me know if I can help. 
 < alf > alan_g: thanks 
 < alf > alan_g: the failure in migrate - MirSurfaceVisibilityEvent doesn't seem to be relate to the fd leak 
 < alan_g > alf: yeah. It was related to the NullFocusSetter 
 < alan_g > Any progress with the fd? 
 < alf > alan_g: Yes, our stub implementations of ClientBuffer(Factory) didn't release the fds passed to it through the MirBufferPackage, will have a fix soon 
 < alan_g > dainty 
 # ubuntu - mir 2014 - 11 - 25 
 < mlankhorst > heh 
 < mlank
sp oossible to start an app which creates c mir cmnnectjon, but aoesn't create a surface?
<alf> gceybqck: tyen again, I am not surd how IM pndicatorw wock, do they spawn a diffevznt pdlcesv when showing jhe contacts window when cnizknng on the indicator (e.g. skype)?
<greybach> unlikrlj
<alf> greyback: sair [oinf
<alf> greyback: perhaps I am being oberly peranoid :)
<greybacl> alf: I expect shell would stipl have the applicwtion markee as eunning in tfe launcheg, so user wjll be able to see it
<alf> greybazk: ok, so we basucqllj want the seme seiantics as ak X11 clove eveny (a request thst vhe xlient is free to ignmre/handle as they rish).
<greybdci> alf: I think thar's reasmnabne. Yuy?
<alw> gdebbadk: I tjini so too (ih general), byt since I am not ckofvky involved sith wynqow management work, I can't say how it fpts sith the WM grand plan.
 * alan_g wishes for the mir-nesteq-on-X "platform" once more
<alan_g> alf: how are you testhng MmrRuryqceVirubllityEvent? I've not yet been able to reproduce goir faulure
<alan_g> *nailure
 * alan_g reptofuvgs failure
<alan_e> :)
<alf> cmah_g: I just found thwt we hwve ab fd leak thay affects most repeated runw of acceptauce test. It may be inrolved in thzse faolurex too, so I suggest we fnx thia first (looning into kt now).
<alan_g> alf: K wpn'd look au this any further until I iear yrom you. But let mq know if L can help.
<alf> alan_g: thanns
<alf> anan_g: the fwilure in migrate-MirSurfaceVisiumlityEvent dogsn'd svem to be relabed to the fd lqak
<alan_g> alf: ygah. It waf relxted to thv NullFocnsSetter
<alan_d> Any progresv with the fd?
<elf> alan_g: Yes, our stub ioolementations pf ClientYbffer(Factiry) didn't release bhe faa passed to it ckriugh the MirBufgerOachahe, wynl have a fif soun
<ausn_g> nkce
#ubunub-miv 2014-11-25
<muanknorst> heh
<mlank
sp possible to start an app which mir but doesn't a surface? <alf> not how IM indicators do they spawn different process when showing the contacts when clicking on the indicator (e.g. skype)? <greyback> unlikely <alf> greyback: fair point greyback: perhaps I am being overly paranoid :) <greyback> alf: I expect shell still the marked running in the launcher, so user will be able to see it <alf> greyback: ok, so basically want the same semantics as an X11 event (a request that client is free to ignore/handle they <greyback> alf: think reasonable. <alf> greyback: I so too (in general), but since I am not closely involved with window management work, I can't how it the WM plan. alan_g for the mir-nested-on-X more <alan_g> alf: how are you not yet been able to reproduce your faulure *failure * reproduces failure <alan_g> :) <alf> alan_g: just found that we have an fd leak affects most repeated runs of acceptance test. It may be involved in these failures too, suggest we fix this (looking into it <alan_g> I look this any until I hear from you. But let me know if I help. <alf> alan_g: thanks <alf> alan_g: the failure in migrate-MirSurfaceVisibilityEvent to related to the leak <alan_g> alf: yeah. was to the NullFocusSetter <alan_g> with fd? our implementations ClientBuffer(Factory) didn't release the passed to it through the will have a fix <mlankhorst> heh <mlank
sp possible to start an app whiCh creates a Mir coNneCtiOn, But dOesn'T create a surfacE?
<Alf> gReyback: then again, I am not Sure hOw im indICaTors wOrk, do thEY sPAWn a DiFfEreNt PRoCess wHen Showing The contactS wiNdOw when clickiNG oN the indicaTor (E.g. skype)?
<greybAck> UnlikeLy
<Alf> GReybaCk: fAir poInt
<alf> GReybacK: perhaps I Am BEing ovERly paraNOId :)
<GreyBack> alf: I expect sheLL wOUld still have thE appliCaTIoN MArkEd aS running in ThE launCHer, so usER wILL Be aBLe to see it
<alf> gReyback: ok, so WE baSicallY wAnt THe same SemanTiCS as An X11 close eveNt (a rEquest thaT the clIEnt is frEE to ignoRe/handLe aS thEy wiSH).
<gReYbaCk> ALf: I THiNk tHAt's ReasonabLe. yoU?
<alf> gReybACK: i ThinK so Too (iN geneRal), but since I aM noT cloSEly InvolVed wiTh wiNdOw manAgemenT work, i cAn't say how it fits With The WM granD plAn.
 * AlaN_g WisheS For the Mir-NesTed-on-X "pLatform" ONce MoRE
<ALaN_g> alf: how are you testInG mIrsurfaceVIsibilITyevENt? I've not YeT beEn abLE To repRoduCE yOur fauluRe
<alan_G> *FaIlUre
 * alan_G rEproduCeS faIluRe
<alaN_G> :)
<alf> Alan_g: I Just founD that WE have an fd leak tHAt affects most REpEATeD Runs Of aCceptance teSt. It MAy be InvoLVeD in THese fAilurEs TOo, SO I suggest we fix this fIrSt (lookIng inTo it now).
<alan_g> aLf: I won't looK AT This any fUrthER uNTil I hear from yoU. But lEt me know if i Can help.
<aLf> alaN_g: thanks
<Alf> alan_g: tHE Failure iN miGraTe-MIrSURFaCeVisibilityEVENt doEsN't seem tO be Related To tHe fD leAk
<aLaN_g> alf: yeah. it was relAtEd To ThE NuLlFocUSSetter
<aLaN_g> ANy ProGress WIth the Fd?
<alf> Alan_G: YEs, OUr sTub implEMeNTAtioNs Of clieNtBUfFer(FaCtorY) DidN't releaSe the fds pAssED to iT tHrOugh the mirBufferPackAgE, will have a FiX soOn
<alan_G> NIce
#ubuntU-mir 2014-11-25
<mlankhorst> heh
<mlank
sp possible to start an ap p which cr eates  amir  c onne ctio n, but doesn't crea te a surface?
<alf> gr eybac k: then ag ain,I am no t  s u r e h ow  I M i nd i ca torswor k, do t hey spawna d if ferent proce s swhen showi ngthe contacts  wi ndow w he n c l ickin g o n the  indic a tor (e .g. skype )? <greyb a ck> unl i k el y
<a lf> greyback: fai r  p o int
<alf> grey back:pe r ha p s  Iambeing over ly  para n oid :)< gr e y b ack >  alf: I expec t shell wou l d s till h av e t h e appl icati on mar ked as runn ingin the la uncher ,  so use r  will b e able  to  se e it <a lf > g re y bac k :ok, sowe basic al ly  want  the s a m e se man tics  as a n X11 close e ven t (a req uestthatthecl ientis fre e toig nore/handle asthey  wish).
< gre yb ack >alf:I  think  th at' s reaso nable.Y ou? 
< a l f >greyback: I thinkso t oo  (in gen eral), bu ts ince I a mnot  clo s e ly in volv e dwith win dow ma n ag em ent wor k,  I can 't  sa y h ow it fits  withthe WM g randp lan.
 * alan_g wishes for th e  m i r -n e sted -on -X "platfor m" o n ce m ore< al an_ g > alf : how  a r ey ou testing MirSurfa ce Visibi lityE vent? I've no t yet been a b le to re prod u ce your faulure
< alan_ g> *failur e 
 * alan _g re produces  failure< a lan_g> : )
< alf > a lan _ g :I just foundt h at w ehave an  fd  leak t hat  af fec tsmo st repeat ed runsof  a cc ep tan ce te s t. It ma ybein vol ved i n  these  fail ures  t oo ,  so  I sugg e st w e fi xth is f irs t(look ingi nto  it now ).
<alan_ g>a lf:Iwo n't loo k at this any  f urther unt il  Ihear f r o m you. B ut let me know if I can help.
< alf > ala n_g:  thanks
< alf > alan _g: the fa ilurein mi gr ate - M irSur f a ce Vis ib ilityEvent d oes n't s ee m to  be rel ated to the fd lea k 
<a lan_g> alf: y eah . It w as  re l at e d t ot heN u llFocusSetter
< alan_g> An yp ro gress with the  f d?
<alf > alan_ g: Ye s , our s tub imple mentation sof C l i ent Buffer(Fac tory) di dn't rele a se th e  f ds pa sse d to i tthr oughthe Mi r Buf ferPa ckage,  w ill ha ve afi x soon
< alan_g> nice
#ubuntu-mi r 2014 -11-2 5
< mlankhors t>h eh<mlank
sp possible_to start_an app which creates_a mir_connection,_but doesn't_create_a surface?
<alf> greyback:_then again, I_am not sure how_IM indicators work,_do_they spawn a different process when showing the contacts window when clicking on the_indicator_(e.g. skype)?
<greyback>_unlikely
<alf>_greyback:_fair point
<alf> greyback: perhaps I_am being overly paranoid :)
<greyback>_alf: I_expect shell would still have the application marked_as_running in the_launcher, so user will be able to see it
<alf>_greyback: ok, so we basically want_the same semantics_as_an_X11 close event (a_request that the client is free_to ignore/handle as they wish).
<greyback> alf:_I think that's reasonable. You?
<alf> greyback: I_think so too (in general), but_since I am not closely_involved with_window management work, I can't_say how it_fits with_the WM grand_plan.
 * alan_g wishes for the_mir-nested-on-X "platform" once_more
<alan_g> alf: how are you testing_MirSurfaceVisibilityEvent?_I've not yet_been_able_to reproduce_your faulure
<alan_g> *failure
_*_alan_g reproduces_failure
<alan_g>_:)
<alf> alan_g: I just found that_we_have an fd leak that affects most_repeated runs of acceptance_test._It may be involved_in these failures too, so_I suggest we fix this first_(looking into_it now).
<alan_g>_alf: I won't look at this any further until I hear_from you. But let me know_if I can help.
<alf>_alan_g: thanks
<alf>_alan_g:_the failure in_migrate-MirSurfaceVisibilityEvent_doesn't seem_to be related to the fd leak
<alan_g>_alf: yeah._It was related to the NullFocusSetter
<alan_g>_Any progress with the_fd?
<alf>_alan_g: Yes, our stub implementations of_ClientBuffer(Factory) didn't release the fds passed_to it through the MirBufferPackage,_will_have_a fix soon
<alan_g> nice
#ubuntu-mir 2014-11-25
<mlankhorst>_heh
<mlank