15:00:24 #startmeeting RDO meeting (2016-03-02) 15:00:24 Meeting started Wed Mar 2 15:00:24 2016 UTC. The chair is jpena. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:24 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 15:00:24 The meeting name has been set to 'rdo_meeting_(2016-03-02)' 15:00:36 #topic roll call 15:00:37 o/ 15:00:41 o/ 15:00:43 o/ 15:00:44 o/ 15:00:50 #chair jschlueter trown leanderthal mflobo 15:00:50 Current chairs: jpena jschlueter leanderthal mflobo trown 15:00:50 o/ 15:00:56 #chair jruzicka 15:00:56 Current chairs: jpena jruzicka jschlueter leanderthal mflobo trown 15:01:06 trown: awesome, i can work on the baremetal stuff 15:01:09 how do you know whom to chair? everyone who raises their hands? 15:01:20 leanderthal: mostly :) 15:01:30 o/ 15:01:33 \o/ 15:01:37 jpena, fair 15:01:42 Why can't I send to the channel? 15:01:44 Oh, there we go. 15:01:50 #chair elmiko chandankumar rbowen 15:01:50 Current chairs: chandankumar elmiko jpena jruzicka jschlueter leanderthal mflobo rbowen trown 15:01:52 /o/ 15:02:20 o/ 15:02:24 o/ 15:02:30 #chair apevec EmilienM 15:02:30 Current chairs: EmilienM apevec chandankumar elmiko jpena jruzicka jschlueter leanderthal mflobo rbowen trown 15:03:12 ok, let's start with the agenda 15:03:14 #topic take2, Delorean -> Fluzo: fluzo.com is taken, so (TM) issues possible :( 15:03:19 ah yes 15:03:37 so looks like there's company w/ that name 15:03:43 naming is hard 15:03:44 so we better avoid it 15:03:46 it is! 15:03:59 there are few new suggestions on ethpad 15:04:10 mine: ozulf (fluzo backwards) 15:04:17 which I think it's lame :) 15:04:25 then paramite's vodou suggestion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damballa 15:04:29 lol 15:04:51 I'm not sure what's the connection to back to the future theme 15:04:58 also, no religion please 15:05:03 why not call it hover-board? 15:05:15 and finally, paramite's elements suggestion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeolite 15:05:16 damballa is problematic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damballa_%28company%29 15:05:18 which is kind of nice 15:05:29 trown, thanks, so it's out 15:06:20 I'd propose to have an etherpad where we propose names, then we can do our due diligence to find out if there are tm issues for a week and decide in the next meeting 15:06:21 o/ 15:06:28 there is also http://www.zeolite.com/ 15:06:36 and it is used in cat liter 15:06:46 lol 15:06:48 ouch 15:06:50 bwahahahaha 15:06:58 does that make it more relevant or less? 15:06:59 jpena: +1 15:07:02 /hides 15:07:05 hehe 15:07:11 nice lol 15:07:16 +1 to jpena suggestion 15:07:29 +2 to jpena suggestion 15:07:30 maybe send out something to ML with etherpad link to get more participation? 15:07:32 * apevec apevec to open an etherpad for future Delorean name 15:07:42 #undo 15:07:42 Removing item from minutes: 15:07:52 let's leave it in the RDO meeting one, no? 15:07:56 * apevec apevec to open an etherpad for future Delorean name and advertise on rdo-list 15:08:03 oh, ok 15:08:07 trown: +1, getting wider audience would be excellent 15:08:22 jruzicka, no, I just started cleaning RDO-Meeting :) 15:08:22 I think apevec meant TripleO! ( https://www.rdoproject.org/blog/2016/02/rdo-manager-is-now-tripleo/ ) 15:08:27 2016-03-02 14:59:09 [NovaCompute]: CREATE_FAILED ResourceInError: resources.NovaCompute: Went to status ERROR due to "Message: Exceeded maximum number of retries. Exceeded max scheduling attempts 3 for instance 93069fc8-87d0-423d-b918-897cfb56f6f2. Last exception: Failed to provision instance 93069fc8-8 15:08:28 ideas? 15:08:36 red_trela: after meeting 15:08:53 so we need topic to re-program regex in rdobot :) 15:08:58 lol 15:09:03 :D 15:09:05 dmsimard|afk: is afk 15:09:09 ok, next topic 15:09:16 #topic undercloud.qcow2 mirroring for testdays 15:09:36 trown, ^ came up today when red_trela was failing to d/l 15:09:43 but do we actually need it now? 15:09:44 apevec: did you put this up for ... ah yep 15:09:51 how big is that file? 15:09:53 apevec: it should not be needed 15:10:02 ok, done :) 15:10:07 there is built in retry w/ resume now, and caching 15:10:21 trown, it's just if someone tries manual curl which will fail 15:10:42 #action trown fix RDO tripleo docs to not mention manual curl 15:11:15 trown: if the file is not huge, we might even host it in the delorean/fluzo/whatever host 15:11:19 it doesn't, I think - I just preferred it :) 15:11:36 red_trela: ah ok, I should still fix it up :) 15:11:56 jpena, it is huge 15:12:00 few GBs 15:12:02 jpena: it is 2.5G, and mirroring would be good, it is just not a blocker for anything 15:12:14 2.5 GB is not that much 15:12:16 mirroring in proper CDN that is 15:12:32 jpena, still, it would be a load on hosting link 15:12:42 yea, downloading it from Japan is super slow :) 15:13:15 next topic? 15:13:26 yep 15:13:30 #topic Failure to build from source workflow 15:13:57 So the question here is what to do when we have a FTBFS (failed to build from source) 15:13:58 I put this one up, since it has come up a couple times this week 15:14:36 proposal is: quickfix + open new empty TODO review for followup 15:14:47 could be scripted? 15:15:24 asking the other way around: what is the harm if a ftbfs takes a couple days to fix? 15:15:27 maybe, though the empty TODO review should not be much effort 15:15:59 jpena: it means delorean consistent repo can not move forward, and often we are waiting for some fix to land to potentially promote delorean 15:16:25 and we can only promote consistent, right? 15:16:28 and recent history has shown that delorean does not stay "promotable" for very long 15:16:30 ya 15:17:14 so 2 days is a really long time... ideally we fix FTBFS within hours 15:18:21 In those cases, I'd be ok with quickfixing and opening a follow-up review to complete the build. In those cases, the added file is not usually required in the short term, and if it is we need to fix packaging anyway 15:18:24 if no. of FTBFS reviews are less, we can fix quicklly. 15:19:24 ya both of the cases this week were FTBFS for an added binary, that could not even be used without new configuration 15:19:25 jpena, usual case is just what we had: new service binary is added 15:19:54 but support in puppet is missing so can't be used anyways 15:20:01 so fixing by just adding the binary, with follow-up TODO review to properly add the service seems like a good compromise 15:20:02 yeah, what trown said 15:20:13 yes, lgtm 15:20:19 is anyone against this proposal? 15:20:30 i am ok with it. 15:20:44 I'll describe that in packaging docs update which I'm supposed to be working on 15:20:50 :) 15:20:50 ack 15:20:55 is there a way better way to add it to my watchlist? 15:21:11 #action apevec describe FTBFS flow in packaging docs update 15:21:14 chandankumar: the TODO review? 15:21:19 yes 15:21:30 chandankumar, it would get the same topic:rdo-FTBFS 15:21:40 I think the TODO review should include adding maintiners in rdoinfo to the review 15:21:58 trown, ack 15:22:16 ok 15:22:39 and title in big letters: TODO complete "$previous-review-subject" 15:22:59 ya, as big of letters as a commit message allows :) 15:23:55 ok, next topic? 15:24:00 next 15:24:11 #topic python-%{service}-tests packages (that include tempest tests for each OpenStack project) 15:24:14 o/ 15:24:36 IIRC we had that topic months ago but it was not priority 15:24:39 now it is 15:24:41 the soon the better so upstream CI can run tempest plugins and then RDO CI too 15:25:06 we actually have -tests subpackage in example openstack .spec 15:25:09 it's some work to invest but worth it regarding the testing coverage we can have 15:25:31 it takes 3 chunks in .spec: 15:25:31 https://github.com/javierpena/openstack-example-spec/blob/master/openstack-example.spec#L48-L56 15:25:31 https://github.com/javierpena/openstack-example-spec/blob/master/openstack-example.spec#L139-L141 15:25:31 https://github.com/javierpena/openstack-example-spec/blob/master/openstack-example.spec#L148 15:25:35 do we have a list of the packages without -tests subpkg? 15:25:47 I did example for Keystone: https://review.gerrithub.io/264900 Add Keystone tests subpackage 15:25:59 jpena, list with -tests would be shorter I guess 15:26:17 Neutron had it 15:26:34 that's where it came to example spec from :) 15:26:43 apevec, what about enabling %check section for test subpackages in openstack -* packages? 15:26:50 chandankumar, hold on :) 15:26:53 step by step 15:27:03 -tests is a priority now 15:27:14 %check can come next 15:27:29 so first we need those for OpenStack services, right? 15:27:33 yes 15:27:50 ok, let's then check them all and create a trello card to track them 15:27:56 +1 15:27:58 ack, who can take that action 15:28:05 I can help 15:28:07 i can helo 15:28:10 *help 15:28:20 chandankumar: go ahead man 15:28:20 I can create the trello card 15:28:22 first step is to grep all specs 15:29:37 ok 15:30:25 action for the record? 15:31:20 #action chandankumar will create a trello card with packages requiring -tests subpkg 15:31:21 I will list down which of the openstack-* have missing test subpackages. 15:31:40 awesome 15:31:41 ack 15:31:47 I will take a couple from the trello card 15:31:53 chandankumar: ping me if you need help please 15:31:59 sure EmilienM 15:32:01 :-) 15:32:33 so... if we're done with this topic, we can go to the last one 15:33:01 I thought we had chairs lined up again 15:33:05 #topic open floor 15:33:29 leanderthal, is chair for next meeting i think? 15:33:47 8chairing 15:33:51 *chairing 15:34:12 i am 15:34:17 :-) 15:34:19 sweet 15:34:20 go me! 15:34:38 #action leanderthal to chair for next meeting. 15:34:51 *flex* 15:35:02 question, is the script to build bare metal going to the docs, or how do w communicate to the rest of the users? 15:35:10 sorry, late question about -tests subpackages: it's not so easy, as the entry points for Tempest plugin should be split as well 15:35:16 do you know how it can be done with setuptools? 15:36:02 tosky, tell me more 15:36:06 if you just applies the changes that apevec pointed out, the entry point will end up into the common/main package and tempest discovery could fail anyway 15:36:31 apevec: packages which export tempest-style tests using the Tempest Plugin interface require a special entry point 15:36:35 you can see an example here: 15:36:39 (moment) 15:36:40 tosky, link me some examples 15:37:07 tosky, -tests subpkg depends on openstack-$service 15:37:18 so I think we shold have those entry points, no? 15:37:18 apevec: http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/sahara/tree/setup.cfg#n65 15:37:26 in the system 15:37:32 yes, but see this scenario: 15:37:49 you install only the main package (see sahara and manila) 15:38:00 apevec, you know who's name should be on that review? 15:38:00 right, and that fails 15:38:09 run tempest discovery, boom, because the entry point is defined but the code is not there unless you install the -tests package 15:38:11 ayoung, which review? 15:38:17 https://review.gerrithub.io/#/c/264900/ 15:38:26 apevec, anything with Keystone....please keep me in mind 15:38:39 tosky, right, I don't see a problem with that scenario, install -tests if you want tests 15:38:41 so unless you make openstack-tempest depend on all possible -tests packages which export tempest tests, it's not exactly going to work 15:39:16 tosky, why would that be needed? 15:39:18 apevec: yes, but you need to install each and every declared -tests package even if you want to run a subset 15:39:27 install openstack-tempest + -tests for stuff you want to test 15:39:31 no 15:39:34 tosky, wha? 15:39:35 oh I see 15:39:43 tempest tries to find all the entry points when it runs discovery 15:39:44 that's silly 15:39:53 but it's what it is now 15:40:00 complaining upstream, we need a solution :) 15:40:01 tosky, it could do try: import ... 15:40:03 apevec: the entrypoints will be there for the service, if you dont install the tests package tempest will barf 15:40:06 damn upstream :) 15:40:12 pinche tempest 15:40:18 trown, yeah, I see but still ... 15:40:25 it's not an import, it's an entry point in setup.cfg in tempest 15:40:29 we can't split egginfo 15:40:30 tosky: if it doesn't find the entry point, does it just ignore it or fail? Because today we have packages that just remove tests (e.g. keystone) 15:40:34 We are trying to get the Functional test out of Tempest upstream 15:40:43 jpena: it fails 15:40:55 jpena: keystone hasnt moved to a tempest plugin yet 15:40:56 trown pinche? :P 15:41:01 ahh ok 15:41:06 I have to say I didn't test with Mitaka, but it fails in Liberty 15:41:13 so please be aware that it could be an issue 15:41:29 trown, we are moving to Functional tests. I'd actually think the client is the right place for them. It worked for the recent implied roles change 15:41:34 imcsk8: I grew up in Mexic^wTexas, so its allowed :) 15:41:36 tosky, so I think we can patch that in openstack-tempest RPM as a workaround 15:41:43 so...yell at me, and I will yell at the rest of Keystone core 15:41:44 trown cool hehe 15:41:48 and talk/propose fix upstream 15:42:01 another question: how many tests are we going to package? Scenario/tempest, or also lower level integration and unit? 15:42:30 everything under tests/ 15:42:44 ayoung, client? really? 15:42:55 apevec, yeah. It makes sense when you think about it 15:43:05 we don't really have "functionality" until you can call it from client 15:43:20 and the client really should be tested against a live keystone server, not one running sqlite 15:43:48 I was able to do my development against a Kolla setup stripped down to just Keystone and MySQL 15:43:59 tosky: trying to get some context, let me read 15:44:02 xD 15:44:08 what about adding new feature, shouldn't you have tests for that in the same repo? 15:44:09 apevec: so remember also sahara-tests, which is a new repo where all the high level sahara tests have been moved 15:44:09 apevec, see https://review.openstack.org/#/c/280983/ 15:44:17 apevec, unit tests, yes 15:44:28 and most of our unit tests run through the REST API 15:44:41 dmellado: we need the help of some tempest contributor to fix the discoverability of tempest plugin so that they don't fail if the entry point is defined but the code is not there 15:44:42 but unit tests don't get run against a MySQL backend..too slow 15:45:10 tosky, oh, so separate repo, is that sahara only? 15:45:21 apevec: afaik yes 15:45:24 this will be new package 15:45:33 apevec, and writing any large scale functional test really either needs the client, or you end up reimplementing the client 15:45:43 SRPM but same namespace python-sahara-tests 15:45:51 so...client is the right place. It just doesnt get us a CLI now. That is an additional step 15:45:52 ayoung: well, you can use the tempest clients 15:46:07 tosky, as I said, you need to reimplement 15:46:17 this is new functionality: the API calls to do implied roles 15:46:23 tempest reimplements all clients? 15:46:27 tosky: I'll try to bring the topic u/s or downstream worst case, but I need to check first where that filure would be producing 15:46:27 yes 15:46:35 apevec: yes 15:46:36 apevec: tempest uses its own service clients, yes 15:46:38 are they rounder? 15:46:50 apevec, and now you understand why we want to take over our own functional testing\ 15:47:02 apevec: https://github.com/redhat-openstack/tempest/tree/master/tempest/services 15:47:13 tempest only brushes on the top of Keystone behavior 15:47:34 https://github.com/redhat-openstack/tempest/tree/master/tempest/services/identity/v3 is it for identity 15:47:54 should we endmeeting? 15:47:56 ayoung: expect that to change, soon 15:48:03 ok, so anyway -tests subpackaging is the first step 15:48:09 and we'll obviously need to iterate 15:48:21 dmellado, and, as should be obvious, it means our clients are untested 15:48:21 yes, let's end the meeting 15:48:27 * trown goes for coffee... 15:48:32 thanks jpena for chairing 15:48:41 ok, let's end! 15:48:42 ayoung: I've read a discussion about something like this in the ML today 15:48:43 we'll add details in -tests trello card 15:48:43 #endmeeting