Fix latency calculation incoherency.

Fix latency calculation incoherency.

Use logging.error() instead of assert, so that the processing goes on but that
the error is not completely silently dropped.

The problem is that calculating the latency twice resulted in different values.
This can happen when the way latency is calculated is changed.

[M-A, 2013-10-17 01:33:04]

I tested this CL live and this fixed what was blocking the statistics update.

[Roger Tawa, 2013-10-17 13:05:32]

Lgtm
On Oct 16, 2013 9:33 PM, <maruel@chromium.org> wrote:

> Reviewers: Roger Tawa,
>
> Message:
> I tested this CL live and this fixed what was blocking the statistics
> update.
>
> Description:
> Fix latency calculation incoherency.
>
> Use logging.error() instead of assert, so that the processing goes on
> but that
> the error is not completely silently dropped.
>
> The problem is that calculating the latency twice resulted in different
> values.
> This can happen when the way latency is calculated is changed.
>
> Please review this at
https://codereview.appspot.**com/14771043/<https://codereview.appspot.com/147...
>
> Affected files (+10, -6 lines):
>   M codereview/views.py
>
>
> Index: codereview/views.py
> ==============================**==============================**=======
> --- a/codereview/views.py
> +++ b/codereview/views.py
> @@ -5133,15 +5133,10 @@
>          # It was already there, update.
>          i = item.issues.index(issue_id)
>
> -        # Either one of them has latency value, either both match.
> -        assert (
> -          item.latencies[i] == latency or
> -          (item.latencies[i] == -1 or latency == -1)), item
> -
>          if (item.latencies[i] == latency and
>              item.lgtms[i] == lgtms and
>              item.review_types[i] == review_type):
> -          # Skip.
> +          # Was already calculated, skip.
>            continue
>
>          # Make sure to not "downgrade" the object.
> @@ -5153,6 +5148,15 @@
>            # Unchanged or "lower priority", no need to store again.
>            continue
>
> +        if (item.latencies[i] >= 0 and latency >= 0 and
> +            item.latencies[i] != latency):
> +          # That's rare, the new calculated latency doesn't match the
> previously
> +          # calculated latency. File an error but let it go.
> +          logging.error(
> +              'New calculated latency doesn\'t match previously
> calculated '
> +              'value.\n%s != %s\nItem %d in:\n%s',
> +              item.latencies[i], latency, i, item)
> +
>          item.latencies[i] = latency
>          item.lgtms[i] = lgtms
>          item.review_types[i] = review_type
>
>
>

[M-A, 2013-10-17 13:10:34]

Committed as b03cf30f3124.