15:33:03 <bookwar> #startmeeting Fedora CI
15:33:03 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Dec  4 15:33:03 2019 UTC.
15:33:03 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
15:33:03 <zodbot> The chair is bookwar. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:33:03 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:33:03 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_ci'
15:33:13 <bookwar> .hello2
15:33:14 <zodbot> bookwar: bookwar 'Aleksandra Fedorova' <alpha@bookwar.info>
15:33:20 <msrb> .hello2
15:33:21 <zodbot> msrb: msrb 'Michal Srb' <msrb@redhat.com>
15:33:25 <jbair> .hello2
15:33:26 <zodbot> jbair: Sorry, but you don't exist
15:33:39 <jimbair> .hello2
15:33:40 <zodbot> jimbair: jimbair 'Jim Bair' <jamesdbair@gmail.com>
15:34:24 <bookwar> #link https://etherpad.gnome.org/p/fedora-ci# agenda
15:34:26 <mvadkert> .hello2
15:34:27 <zodbot> mvadkert: mvadkert 'None' <mvadkert@redhat.com>
15:34:38 <bookwar> please add your items to agenda
15:36:37 <bookwar> ok, let's get started
15:36:46 <bookwar> #topic beakerlib failure
15:37:17 <bookwar> there is a current issue with all tests which use beakerlib role from Standard Test Roles framework
15:37:39 <bookwar> which is caused by orphaned python2-xml package
15:37:51 <mvadkert> this is only F31+ right?
15:37:57 <bookwar> we were preparing for it, and the fix for STR is available
15:38:15 <bookwar> yes
15:38:41 <bookwar> the image we use in the pipeline is using old str version
15:38:48 <bookwar> which we need to update
15:39:14 <bookwar> so there is work in progress, once we fix it, we retry the failures
15:39:27 <bookwar> any questions on that?
15:39:47 <bookwar> .. i am not sure if we have a tacking issue in fedora-ci/issues
15:40:05 <mvadkert> good it is almost resolved then :)
15:40:17 <bookwar> looks like we don't
15:40:34 <bookwar> #action bookwar create an issue in fedora-ci tracker
15:41:06 <bookwar> i see someone else added broken rawhide in agenda
15:41:30 <bookwar> is it the same beakerlib role failure or another one?
15:41:35 <mvadkert> bookwar: it was me, but maybe it is a false alarm :)
15:41:53 <mvadkert> bookwar: pingou was asking something, but after reading more carefully it is about stage pipeline
15:41:57 <bookwar> i guess we are going to next topic
15:42:05 <bookwar> #topic Zuul update
15:42:06 <mvadkert> politely scratching then
15:42:15 <bookwar> fbo: are you there? any news? :)
15:43:20 <bookwar> ok, looks like no )
15:43:40 <bookwar> mvadkert: are there ant TFT updates?
15:43:49 <bookwar> or packit related?
15:44:28 <bookwar> #topic Open floor
15:44:35 <bookwar> questions? comments?
15:44:53 <mvadkert> bookwar: unfortunately nothing much, I created an epic for the improvements, but we did not make much progress
15:45:02 <mvadkert> the only thing we added is automatic cleanup of resources on the openshift cluster
15:45:17 <bookwar> for AWS access we are still waiting for  the infra?
15:45:37 <mvadkert> as new requests spin up pods and we need to delete them ourselves
15:45:42 <mvadkert> bookwar: afaik yes
15:45:45 <bookwar> #info AWS access for TFT and Packit is pending
15:45:47 <mvadkert> bookwar: ttomecek filed thje issue
15:45:52 <mvadkert> bookwar: or the request :)
15:45:56 <mvadkert> bookwar: let me look at it
15:46:10 <bookwar> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8403
15:46:11 <bookwar> found
15:46:25 <mvadkert> bookwar: here is the epic: https://teams.fedoraproject.org/project/ci/epic/64
15:46:27 <mvadkert> right
15:46:37 <bookwar> #link https://teams.fedoraproject.org/project/ci/epic/64
15:46:43 <mvadkert> that is more correct on you sent
15:46:51 <mvadkert> bookwar: we have also these epics for testing farm
15:47:03 <mvadkert> https://teams.fedoraproject.org/project/ci/epic/58
15:47:12 <mvadkert> this one is planned rougly after devconf
15:47:20 <mvadkert> not sure we will be able to make much progress on it
15:47:29 <mvadkert> https://teams.fedoraproject.org/project/ci/epic/53
15:47:35 <mvadkert> this on is for devconf
15:48:03 <bookwar> we need to make sure that Zuul team also can support the fmf format, otherwise we would get duplication
15:49:27 <bookwar> #info FMF format for dist-git tests is in progress
15:49:33 <mvadkert> bookwar: indeed
15:49:39 <mvadkert> bookwar: I was thinking about it
15:49:44 <mvadkert> bookwar: but it is a bit early still
15:49:58 <mvadkert> bookwar: but we can open an issue
15:50:08 <ttomecek> .hello2
15:50:09 <zodbot> ttomecek: ttomecek 'Tomas Tomecek' <ttomecek@redhat.com>
15:50:16 <mvadkert> bookwar: I believe it is not yet ready for consumption, we are working on getting it done until devconv
15:50:24 <mvadkert> after that will be the time also for Zuul, in my POW
15:50:29 <bookwar> yes, i think it is worth it, and we need to make sure we have a good enough documentation for fmf format, that others can implement it
15:50:45 <bookwar> mvadkert: ok
15:50:53 <mvadkert> bookwar: I hope Zull will just use "tmt run" as we do, so they do not need to implement the runner
15:51:02 <mvadkert> bookwar: but we will see,
15:51:18 <mvadkert> we are now adding support for managed host, i.e. zull would provide the provisioned machine
15:51:21 <mvadkert> and jsut use it as a runner
15:51:28 <bookwar> interesting
15:51:28 <mvadkert> similarly as you run STR
15:51:46 <mvadkert> bookwar: this is how we pplan to use it also in downstream and in Fedora CI
15:51:51 <bookwar> i like the idea
15:51:54 <mvadkert> an gives you this unified experience
15:52:00 <mvadkert> on localhost (for the user)
15:52:03 <mvadkert> and also in CI
15:52:34 <mvadkert> this is the PR adding it: https://github.com/psss/tmt/pull/47
15:52:44 <bookwar> I agree, separation of provisioning step from the test run is important
15:53:19 <bookwar> i wanted to refactor this part for STR as well, maybe i'll get some more for it on Christmas :)
15:53:27 <bookwar> ok, any other topics?
15:53:57 <bookwar> next meeting is on Dec 18th, i think it is the last one this year
15:54:14 <bookwar> and we are _not_ going to have one on January 1st :)
15:54:20 <mvadkert> what is the status of the pipelines, outside of that beakerlib issue, do we have more?
15:54:28 <mvadkert> bookwar: that thing today was the same thing?
15:54:38 <bookwar> not that I am aware of
15:54:40 <mvadkert> bookwar: +1 for no meeting on 1st January :D
15:54:45 <mvadkert> bookwar: ok
15:54:47 <mvadkert> cool
15:55:21 <bookwar> ok, let's fiinish for today
15:55:30 <bookwar> #endmeeting