IRC chat with discussion:

<terceiro> nicks: actually not - I see the same issue as you
<terceiro> will report a bug
<terceiro> nicks: https://bugs.launchpad.net/lava-dispatcher/+bug/1166935
<terceiro> stylesen: ^
<stylesen> terceiro: description is a mandatory field in all the test definitions
<stylesen> terceiro: description, name, format and version (only if the test def comes from a URL, version is mandatory)
<terceiro> stylesen: that testdef used to work before
<terceiro> I didn't change it for ages
<stylesen> terceiro: yes it used to, but now due to format upgrade and also since none of the fields in testdef_metadata are not optional, it will not work
<stylesen> terceiro: if we want to make it work, then we need have empty strings initialized in code
<terceiro> stylesen: or make the attribute optional?
<stylesen> terceiro: anyways, add your thoughts on the bug, I shall look into it tomorrow
<terceiro> stylesen: ok, np - thanks
<tyler-baker> I like the attribute as optional, :)
<stylesen> terceiro: it used to be optional, but zyga did not want everything to be optional
<terceiro> stylesen: I think we can allow a free form text field to be optional :)
<zyga> stylesen: hmm
<zyga> stylesen: my comments on optionality were well founded
<stylesen> zyga: I just made all fields mandatory after your comment
<zyga> stylesen: I don't recall the details anymore
<zyga> stylesen: but If you want I can explain why
<terceiro> stylesen: so before this we could submit a testdef with no metadata whatsoever?
<stylesen> zyga: I remember that it was because, there is chances that we accumulate more incomplete testdef_metadata
<zyga> stylesen: IIRC the situation was that it was possible to break existing submissions when you added testdef meta-data to 1.5 schema
<stylesen> terceiro: before this there was no testdef_metadata accumulation on the database, now there is a model and we strive to make it complete
<zyga> stylesen: if you do 1.6 schema it's still optional because otherwise you cannot upgrade
<terceiro> stylesen: ok, I got it. But will it break existing testdefs people are submitting?
<terceiro> stylesen: I known the ones in qa/test-definitions are complete
<stylesen> terceiro: yes it will break
<terceiro> stylesen: we have to analyze the disruption before deploying that.
<terceiro> we cannot break everything :)
<stylesen> zyga: testdef_metadata dict is optional still, but if exists then the metadata should be complete with all attributes
<zyga> stylesen: yes that makes sense
<terceiro> stylesen: do we know whether there are users submitting testdefs with incomplete metadata?
<terceiro> (other than ourselves)
<stylesen> zyga: that is what is currently available in code, but it will break test definitions that are incomplete with metadata, which is correct, terceiro? what do you feel?
<terceiro> stylesen: correct. I think we should investigate users that would be impacted by this and notify then a few days before upgrading
<stylesen> terceiro: apart from us, everyone has incomplete metadata, hence it will break, this will be an opportunity to fix their test definitions with correct metadata and have complete data in our database models
<zyga> stylesen: sorry, I don't follow lava daily anymore :/
<terceiro> stylesen: ok, but we cannot break everything to raise awareness; we have to tell people to complete their testdefs before we break their stuff :)
<stylesen> zyga: thank you
<stylesen> terceiro: what is the best strategy? email to everyone @ l.o ?