23:59:21 #startmeeting Ansible Azure Working Group 23:59:21 Meeting started Wed Oct 17 23:59:21 2018 UTC. 23:59:21 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 23:59:21 The chair is nitzmahone. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 23:59:21 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 23:59:21 The meeting name has been set to 'ansible_azure_working_group' 23:59:31 #chair yungezz Kylie_ 23:59:31 Current chairs: Kylie_ nitzmahone yungezz 00:00:17 I don’t have special topic today but some prs 00:00:26 Jordan's on a plane, so won't be joining today 00:00:39 I have a couple things we should talk about as well 00:00:48 #chair zikalino82 00:00:48 Current chairs: Kylie_ nitzmahone yungezz zikalino82 00:00:57 Sure 00:01:15 Matt, let us start from you topics 00:01:44 First is just a reminder to include a changelog fragment on feature/bugfix PRs (so they'll automatically be available on bugfix backports as well) 00:02:16 Yes 00:02:18 yes, so that's quite new thing right? i noticed related doc appeared around a month ago 00:02:23 No need to do it for new modules/plugins as we generate those lists, but anytime a new feature is added to an existing thing or a bugfix is done, it should have a changelog fragment added 00:02:48 It's actually been around since 2.5, but we'll probably start cracking down on it more soon 00:03:27 shouldn't this somehow be taken from pr summary? 00:03:30 So just something to keep an eye on as you're reviewing each others' work 00:03:49 Ok 00:03:53 Not necessarily; we've tried a few different ways to automatically create them, but they usually cause more problems than they solve 00:04:01 ok 00:04:40 This is just for users to see at a glance what's new/fixed in a given release, so short and bugfixes should usually point to the fix PR 00:04:41 I remember Catherine raised this before. If we don’t add change log, our fixes cannot be captured by release notes of 2.6.x. 00:04:52 Yes 00:04:55 Exactly- they're generated off the changelog fragments 00:05:14 (used to be a manual doc, but was problematic for backports and other things) 00:05:25 That's all on that... 00:05:37 mattclay was also seeing some weird failures in CI 00:06:08 It looks like some API results are returning something that's not like we expect- not a CloudError, but doesn't have "id" field, for instance 00:06:36 So we see KeyError: 'id' and there's no useful exception detail 00:06:43 Any idea what resource or module? 00:07:01 Here's one he sent me: https://app.shippable.com/github/ansible/ansible/runs/88950/77/tests 00:07:28 it was webapp and appserviceplan in this case, but I think he said we've seen it elsewhere 00:07:52 Not sure if it's a module bug or weird REST API failure case or what 00:08:08 I will look at it 00:08:29 So maybe more defensive code needed around things like `response['id']` to handle if it's not there without a KeyError (and hopefully to show us what we got back) 00:08:36 #action yungezz look at test failure 00:09:05 Last thing from me was around addition of `requests[security]` to Azure requirements 00:10:59 I can't remember if that was required by Azure itself or we needed it for some reason 00:11:30 I guess I'll talk that over with Matt offline; it was apparently causing some Tower users grief 00:11:37 So that's all from me 00:11:46 #chair yuwei 00:11:46 Current chairs: Kylie_ nitzmahone yungezz yuwei zikalino82 00:11:48 Howdy 00:12:01 hi 00:12:33 yungezz: you had some PRs you wanted us to look over? 00:12:51 (I merged Zim's 2 this week) 00:12:54 For the security, you will go back to us later? 00:13:14 Yeah, I hadn't looked at the blame beforehand, just came up yesterday 00:13:18 thanks a lot! 00:13:28 I'll bring it back next week once Matt and I have discussed 00:13:39 Ok 00:13:44 https://github.com/ansible/ansible/issues/46796 00:13:46 i will have a few smaller modules to merge, i will send in a separate e-mail 00:14:00 still working on them 00:14:02 k 00:14:12 https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/46939 00:15:31 #action nitzmahone to review 46796, 46939 00:15:46 https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/47045 00:16:00 yungezz: anything controversial to discuss on those now, or should I just review offline? 00:16:26 That’s all from me 00:16:41 They’re simple modules, pls review them offline 00:16:42 #action nitzmahone to review 47045 00:16:57 will do 00:17:10 Thanks a lot! 00:17:20 No worries! 00:17:24 Anything else for today 00:17:25 ? 00:17:45 Kylie_: do you have anything? 00:17:55 Zim and Catherine, do you want to discuss VM here? 00:19:17 Yes, vm module is really big now, and we got some feedback, such as async sub resource creation to reduce duration 00:20:02 We have some initial thought to update existing VM module. In general what’s suggested approach? 1) creat a new one and retire old one; 2) update existing one and retire some old features? 00:20:26 yeah, here's my list: 00:20:33 Uploaded file: https://uploads.kiwiirc.com/files/782f41568a8e4355f49462e5f5ff7ec2/pasted.txt 00:20:59 Unless the UI is totally unworkable, changing implementation is usually preferrred 00:21:11 For 2) retire features, how about existing users 00:21:18 Sometimes it's just so awful that you need to start over, but naming is problematic (for one thing) 00:21:38 2) that will go through standard retiring cycle 00:21:48 Deprecation warning period + removal after 4 releases is our usual policy 00:21:55 Ok 00:22:07 Thank you 00:22:18 and i think we shoudl start with the features that will actually improve current implementation 00:22:29 for instance proper cleanup, proper idempotency, etc... 00:22:43 I don't know if it's made it your way yet, but I came up with a list of things that should be fixed in existing stuff for Azure "certified modules" 00:22:53 Yeah, +1 to all that 00:23:17 Async subresource creation should be do-able in existing impl as well without much hassle 00:23:25 Yes 00:23:25 where's that list? 00:24:14 maybe we should create issues on github.... 00:24:23 I sent to our cloud PM to make sure partner folks have no objections, so either it'll come back around through Microsoft somewhere, or I can convert to wiki or share here and discuss once our end agrees with what I proposed 00:24:42 It's just a starting point 00:25:07 Thanks it will be great to have a wiki to start discussion 00:25:09 or shoudl we add it to the module guidelines? 00:25:15 Yes 00:25:26 This is more of specifics on a bunch of modules 00:25:34 ah, ok 00:25:49 Adding to coding guidelines after improvement done sounds better 00:25:54 So we might want to work backwards from that to update module guidelines, but I think you've already covered a number of the items there (so hopefully new stuff won't have the same issues) 00:26:11 Who is cloud PM? Dylan? 00:26:16 Richard Henshall 00:26:53 Got. I thought he is engineering manager. 00:27:06 They're on the same team, and responsibilities may be shuffled soon... 00:27:17 James Tanner is the eng manager 00:28:25 Anyway, I'll hopefully have enough internal agreement on that to bring it next week, just wanted to let everyone know it was in the works 00:28:37 Well received 00:28:48 Ok 00:28:51 Anything else for today? 00:28:59 not from me 00:29:00 No. 00:29:08 On time:) 00:29:09 No from me 00:29:10 Short meetings are good! 00:29:17 :) 00:29:18 Til next week, then- thanks all! 00:29:21 #endmeeting